Languish.org

Quote

Storing The Sun's Energy Just Got A Whole Lot Cheaper

by Joe Romm May 18, 2016 10:50 am

With prices dropping rapidly for both renewables and battery storage, the economics of decarbonizing the grid are changing faster than most policymakers, journalists, and others realize. So, as part of my ongoing series, "Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated," I will highlight individual case studies of this real-time revolution.

My Monday post discussed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) report that in the first quarter, the U.S. grid added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity, but 1,291 MW of new renewables. But one of FERC's "Electric Generation Highlights" for March deserves special attention as a leading indicator of the revolutionary new economics of solar plus storage:


Half Moon Ventures LLC's 4.2 MW Minster Solar Project in Auglaise County, OH is online. This project includes an energy storage capacity.

The Minster "solar + storage system is the largest U.S. facility of its kind connected through a municipal utility," according to S&C Electric Company, which built and integrated the storage system. It combines a 4.3-MW photovoltaic systems and a 7-MW/3-MWh storage management system that provides power conversion with lithium ion batteries.

How does a storage system based on lithium-ion batteries make economic sense? The answer is: in a few different ways, with a system called "revenue stacking." It's worth taking a slightly wonky look at how such a system can stack or combine multiple revenue sources, since this is a defining feature of the game-changing new economics of solar energy plus storage.

To get the scoop on the system, I spoke to S&C's Director of Grid Solutions, Troy Miller, who described this as "one of the first, if not the first" energy storage system to allow so many different revenues sources. The company has also posted online the full case study.

Capturing the Multi-Faceted Value of Energy Storage

First, this system lets Half Moon Venture sell into PJM's market for frequency regulation. PJM is the regional transmission organization that coordinates wholesale electricity movement and maintains grid reliability for over 60 million customers in 13 Eastern and Midwestern states and the District of Columbia. Frequency regulation is "the injection and withdrawal of power on a second-by-second basis to maintain grid frequency at 60 Hz."

To make this happen, "the battery system was sized for frequent charging and discharging cycles." The control platform for the system was designed "to interface with PJM market interfacing software to enable the system to follow a signal from PJM." The system analyzes both grid conditions and market pricing to determine how to optimize revenues by either dispatching to or absorbing electricity from the grid.

Second, the Village of Minster had a major power quality problem — "occasional low power factor," which wastes energy and requires expensive equipment to fix. Minster had been planning to install $350,000 worth of capacitor banks dedicated to dealing with this issue. But S&C was able to design the storage system to "provide power-factor correction concurrent with frequency regulation services." That saved Minster $350,000.

Third, the system will allow Minster to reduce peak mid-day demand charges. Utilities typically charge customers a fee whose size depends on the maximum power consumed during a day since, they argue, they have to maintain enough capacity to deal with the very biggest peak demand they might see — typically during a hot summer day.

For a large electricity user like Minster, "PJM looks at the five highest two-hour peak load periods across its entire territory" at the end of a given year. PJM then assesses the user a "Peak-Load Contribution" charge based on how big the peak is. In Minster's case, it is some 11 megawatts. To save Minster money, S&C designed their energy storage system software "to predict when these peaks would occur" and, when they do, to "switch from providing frequency-regulation services to demand response services." The system should be able to shave Minster's peak demand some 2 MW.

The bottom line, according to Miller, is "Revenue stacking is one of the quickest ways to create a strong return on investment for energy storage systems." He expects to see a lot more projects like these in the future.

I asked him how much the sharp drop in battery prices had opened the door to such projects. Miller explained that battery prices had come down by a factor of three in the last few years, which greatly "expands available opportunities that are currently in the money." Lots of stuff that didn't make economic sense now does.

We already know there are a number of ways to greatly increase the penetration of renewable energy using existing hardware and software. What we are now witnessing is the dawn of a revolution that will enable lithium-ion batteries to play a larger and larger role in that increased penetration.

Renewables are more unstoppable than ever. The only questions that remain now are 1) will we embrace the kind of aggressive deployment programs needed to avoid catastrophic global warming, and 2) will we nurture a domestic market that will maintain U.S. leadership in key job-creating low carbon technologies, or will we outsource more jobs to China and Europe.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables.

Quote

Renewables Are Leaving Natural Gas In The Dust This Year

by Joe Romm May 16, 2016 4:09 pm

In the first three months of 2016, the U.S. grid added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity. It added a whopping 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables.

The renewables were primarily wind (707 MW) and solar (522 MW). We also added some biomass (33 MW) and hydropower (29 MW). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) latest monthly "Energy Infrastructure Update" reports that no new capacity of coal, oil, or nuclear power were added in the first quarter of the year.

So the U.S. electric grid added more than 70 times as much renewable energy capacity as natural gas capacity from January to March.

QuoteRenewable Electricity Replaces Natural Gas In Europe

May 16th, 2016 by Guest Contributor

Originally published on Renewables International.
By Craig Morris

In April, Germany's Öko-Institut reviewed the situation in Europe's power sector and found that, as renewable electricity grows, coal power largely remains untouched. Electricity from natural gas is being offset.

Renewable electricity is up by more than a third within the EU from 2010 to 2015, having risen by 244 TWh. In return, the coal power has remained relatively stable since 2010 at 300 TWh (lignite) and 500 TWh (hard coal). But electricity from natural gas is down by 283 TWh in those years.

Essentially, Europe has transitioned from natural gas to renewables.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 03:45:43 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 03:45:43 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 03:45:43 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 21, 2016, 09:02:51 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables.

I am surprised you were not channeling Mono and missed the part about the investment opportunity  :)

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 03:45:43 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2016, 12:05:53 AM
Portugal,  population 10.4 million,  ran on 100% renewable energy for 4 days straight.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal-runs-for-four-days-straight-on-renewable-energy-alone

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 21, 2016, 09:07:37 PM
What kind of stadium was that?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 10:11:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 03:45:43 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 20, 2016, 02:01:59 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2016, 01:10:01 AM
The US is a village?

He's saying the amount of electric production added (1291 MW) isn't much.  The US average consumption per capita/year is ~13,250KW according to Google.  1291 MW = 1,291,000KW.  About enough for 100 people a year.

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Glad to hear my understanding wasn't that off base.

Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2016, 10:06:06 PM
I have been saying this for years guys. Cheap and renewable energy is coming. And we are leading the charge here in Texas. We are going to have massive battery banks storing all of our wind and solar energy and we are going to be exporting it all around the country to take advantage of high prices in areas still reliant on old fashioned technology. As I said when I was meeting with the solar and wind investors last year they said they really wouldn't care if the Feds cancelled their tax credit, they know they have reached the tipping point.

Mono I fail to see how one mistake means jack. Would you like to see all the hilarious disasters that can occur when you run a nuclear plant or fire a giant fireball inside a coal plant? Besides as I have said tons of times, but you seem to be deaf to, is that rooftop solar is not a good solution for Hong Kong.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables. 

Then pay higher prices. Somebody else will make the renewables and make a fortune off of Hong Kong's poor planning. Though I will say that renewables requires space. Hong Kong does not have much of that...but then does Hong Kong have coal mines and natural gas operations?

Quote from: Monoriu on May 22, 2016, 03:22:40 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2016, 10:06:06 PM
I have been saying this for years guys. Cheap and renewable energy is coming. And we are leading the charge here in Texas. We are going to have massive battery banks storing all of our wind and solar energy and we are going to be exporting it all around the country to take advantage of high prices in areas still reliant on old fashioned technology. As I said when I was meeting with the solar and wind investors last year they said they really wouldn't care if the Feds cancelled their tax credit, they know they have reached the tipping point.

Mono I fail to see how one mistake means jack. Would you like to see all the hilarious disasters that can occur when you run a nuclear plant or fire a giant fireball inside a coal plant? Besides as I have said tons of times, but you seem to be deaf to, is that rooftop solar is not a good solution for Hong Kong.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 19, 2016, 11:13:35 PM
That's a village.  Currently, Hong Kong's electricity generation fuel mix is 50% coal, 20% nuclear and 30% natural gas.  We are planning to change that to 60% natural gas, 20% coal and 20% nuclear.  There are no plans to use renewables. 

Then pay higher prices. Somebody else will make the renewables and make a fortune off of Hong Kong's poor planning. Though I will say that renewables requires space. Hong Kong does not have much of that...but then does Hong Kong have coal mines and natural gas operations?

As you said, renewable energy requires space.  We don't have space.  So we don't use renewables.  And guess what, as long as this remains true for places outside Europe and North America, the Earth is still doomed :contract:

Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2016, 01:16:01 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 10:11:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Glad to hear my understanding wasn't that off base.

What do you mean measure watts by the hour???

QuoteThe terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (e.g. watts) that represent energy per unit time.

For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h),  A power station would be rated in multiples of watts (for example, the Three Gorges Dam is rated at approximately 22 gigawatts), but its annual energy sales or output would be in multiples of watt hours. Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt hours for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year

QuoteChinese company Shenhua Coal, which signed a memorandum of understanding with SolarReserve last week to build ten, large-scale solar tower and storage plants in China, totalling more than 1,000MW and at a cost of $2bn.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2016, 07:05:28 AM

Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2016, 01:16:01 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2016, 10:11:16 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2016, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen

I thought power plants measured watts by the hour? :unsure:

Correct.

1291 MW is quite a bit.  Equivalent to 2 large generation facilities, about enough to serve 1 million homes.

One heck of village.

Glad to hear my understanding wasn't that off base.

What do you mean measure watts by the hour???

As in the below example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Confusion_of_watts.2C_watt-hours_and_watts_per_hour

QuoteThe terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed and hence is measured in units (e.g. watts) that represent energy per unit time.

For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h),  A power station would be rated in multiples of watts (for example, the Three Gorges Dam is rated at approximately 22 gigawatts), but its annual energy sales or output would be in multiples of watt hours. Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt hours for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year

Quote from: Monoriu on May 22, 2016, 03:22:40 AM
As you said, renewable energy requires space.  We don't have space.  So we don't use renewables.  And guess what, as long as this remains true for places outside Europe and North America, the Earth is still doomed :contract:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2016, 08:17:00 AM
Speaking of China, Mono.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/may/13/tantalisingly-close-is-solar-thermal-energy-ready-to-replace-coal-fired-power

QuoteChinese company Shenhua Coal, which signed a memorandum of understanding with SolarReserve last week to build ten, large-scale solar tower and storage plants in China, totalling more than 1,000MW and at a cost of $2bn.

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:33:31 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2016, 08:17:00 AM
Speaking of China, Mono.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/may/13/tantalisingly-close-is-solar-thermal-energy-ready-to-replace-coal-fired-power

QuoteChinese company Shenhua Coal, which signed a memorandum of understanding with SolarReserve last week to build ten, large-scale solar tower and storage plants in China, totalling more than 1,000MW and at a cost of $2bn.

That is the funny part. For all of Mono's bluster the Chinese have been big leaders in this process.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year :contract:

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:40:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year :contract:

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:50:19 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:40:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year :contract:

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.  The consequences of burning coal are not suffered by the ones who burn the coal.  They are shared and diluted.  There needs to be extra economic incentives for people to switch to wind or solar.  A car is obviously better than a horse for the guy who buys the car.  Building wind turbines isn't necessarily better than burning coal for the local party chief. 

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:54:23 AM


No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:01:32 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:54:23 AM


No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:03:53 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:01:32 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:54:23 AM


No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus :contract:

What is your obsession with global warming? The Republicans in Texas are driving this and they think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy the US economy :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 10:03:53 AM
The Republicans in Texas are driving this and they think global warming is a liberal plot to destroy the US economy :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2016, 10:06:34 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:50:19 AM
I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.

The US EIA is due to revised their levelized cost estimates (incorporates capital and variable cost), but for 2015 they were:

Onshore Wind: 73
Natural gas (conventional CC): 75.2
Hydro: 83.5
Conventional coal: 95.1
Nuclear: 95.2
Solar PV: 125.3
Offshore wind: 196.9

Coal is not particularly cheap as a power generation method.  Gas and onshore wind is cheaper, solar PV is more expensive but not by ridiculous amounts. But what is more significant is that only a few years ago (2011), the same analysis showed more than 100% price premium for solar, which was then over 200.  So the cost trend is clearly in favor of solar.

PRC costs may be differ from the above which are calculated for the US, but I suspect that some of the pressure for coal in the PRC is due to both the relative abundance of domestic resources, and the power of the existing business lobby in the counsels of the Party.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:12:41 AM
I read somewhere that as many Chinese coal miners die each year as the US lost in 911.  I think the cost structure in China is different, with coal being markedly cheaper as there is no incentive to invest in safety precautions :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:07:47 AM
I think global warming is the greatest prisoners' dilemma ever.  The best solution for each individual is for him to burn coal while others spend money to switch to solar.   I think we are all doomed, because you will betray me, and I will betray you. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:12:41 AM
I read somewhere that as many Chinese coal miners die each year as the US lost in 911.  I think the cost structure in China is different, with coal being markedly cheaper as there is no incentive to invest in safety precautions :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:50:19 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:40:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
What process?  I go to China almost annually, and all I see is that the air gets worse year after year :contract:

The process of producing cheap and efficient solar and wind generation.

Yeah and I am sure China produced lots of horse shit in 1920. Cars still won.

I don't think it is that simple.  Coal is still much cheaper than solar or wind.  The consequences of burning coal are not suffered by the ones who burn the coal.  They are shared and diluted.  There needs to be extra economic incentives for people to switch to wind or solar.  A car is obviously better than a horse for the guy who buys the car.  Building wind turbines isn't necessarily better than burning coal for the local party chief.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 02:27:09 AM


That's just not true. Coal companies are going bankrupt all over the world because a combination of natural gas, solar and wind are able to consistently undersell them.

QuoteFollowing years of major expansion and the announcement of the intent – which eventually fell through – to acquire the residential-rooftop solar company Vivint Solar in 2015, SunEdison's stock plummeted and its more than $11 billion in debt caused it to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 21, 2016

Quote
Plans for coal-fired power in Asia are 'disaster for planet' warns World Bank

Experts have offered stark warnings that proposed power plants in India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia would blow Paris climate deal if they move ahead

            World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said that new coal-fired power plants 'would spell disaster for us and our planet'.     
The World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, said that new coal-fired power plants 'would spell disaster for us and our planet'. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
 
Thursday 5 May 2016 19.02 BST  Last modified on Thursday 5 May 2016 19.30 BST 

Plans to build more coal-fired power plants in Asia would be a "disaster for the planet" and overwhelm the deal forged at Paris to fight climate change, the president of the World Bank said on Thursday.

In an unusually stark warning, the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that countries in south and south-east Asia were on track to build hundreds more coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years – despite promises made at Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pivot to a clean energy future.

In the US, coal use is in sharp decline – and the country's biggest companies are in bankruptcy. But there is still strong demand for coal in south Asia and east Asia, where tens of millions still have no access to electricity.

Donald Trump's election would derail Paris climate deal, warns its architect
 
On their own, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam account for three-quarters of new coal-fired power plants expected to be built around the world in the next five years. In India alone about 300 million people live without access to electricity.

"If Vietnam goes forward with 40GW of coal, if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished," Kim told a two-day gathering of government and corporate leaders in Washington, in a departure from his prepared remarks.

"That would spell disaster for us and our planet."

Putting coal-fired plants on hold – permanently – and making it affordable and practical for countries to replace fossil fuels with clean sources of energy such as wind and solar was the prime focus of the two-day meeting, and the bank's new mission.

The bank said last month it would devote 28% of its spending to climate change projects.

The gathering, which came just two weeks after 175 governments reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris agreement in a symbolic signing ceremony at the United Nations, was part of a packed calendar of climate events in 2016.

Government and business leaders involved in brokering the milestone agreement to fight climate change at Paris are desperate to avoid inertia now a deal has been done.

The months until the next annual climate meeting, scheduled for Morocco in November, are studded with conferences intended to turn the promises made at Paris into concrete actions.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is pushing hard for governments to formally join the agreement and bring it into force before Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.

That would help protect the agreement from a future president – such as the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump – who denies or doubts that climate change is even occurring.

Mayors and business leaders at the gathering in Washington said governments also needed to move swiftly to remove barriers to investment in clean energy, especially in developing countries.

Paris agreement is a strong signal that 'we will solve climate crisis', Al Gore says
 
"We have to keep people's trust in us after Paris," Hakima El Haite, Morocco's environment minister, told the gathering. "People are not going to say: 'let's wait for 2020 to find different solutions ... They are not going to wait for a committee on finance to come up with a new statement. They would like a solution."

One of their biggest challenges is the projected new investment in coal-fired power plants in Asia.

According to figures from Platts Energy, China is planning 150GW of new coal plants by 2020, down from 270GW in the last five years. India, although it has declared ambitious plans for solar power, is increasing its share of coal by 125GW. Indonesia is planning to build twice as many new coal plants, or about 25GW.

According to John Roome, the Bank's senior climate change official, if all of those plants are built it will blow the world's efforts, enshrined at Paris, to hold warming to 2C.

"If all of the business-as-usual coal-fired power plants in India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia all came online that would take up a very significant part – in fact almost all – of the carbon budget," Roome said. "It would make it highly unlikely that we would be able to get to 2C."

Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, was even more blunt.

He told the meeting: "Just don't build more coal-fired power plants, please, because then we blow the carbon budget."

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 04:00:35 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 02:27:09 AM


That's just not true. Coal companies are going bankrupt all over the world because a combination of natural gas, solar and wind are able to consistently undersell them.

You mean these companies, right?  :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunEdison

QuoteFollowing years of major expansion and the announcement of the intent – which eventually fell through – to acquire the residential-rooftop solar company Vivint Solar in 2015, SunEdison's stock plummeted and its more than $11 billion in debt caused it to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 21, 2016

QuoteAsia won't abandon coal


Anthony Fensom

Reports of coal's death appear to have been greatly exaggerated, at least judging by major Asian importers' continued commitment to the black gold.

Despite reviving nuclear energy, Japan has given the green light to more coal-fired power plants, after importing a record amount of thermal coal in 2015. Meanwhile, coal demand is set to hit a new record high in neighbouring South Korea, while Taiwan's new government could back increased coal imports to replace ageing nuclear reactors.

Added to the emerging demand from ASEAN and India, and suddenly coal bulls have reason for optimism after a year to forget for the global industry, including a drop in demand by China.

Moves by miners to reduce metallurgical coal oversupply could even see prices start rising again, with analysts predicting a rise in the benchmark price in 2Q16 as China curbs output.

The world's biggest coal consumer, producer and importer has flagged plans to cut 1.8 million workers from its coal and steel workforce, with Chinese firms reportedly pushing Beijing to set a price floor to protect against mass bankruptcies and layoffs.

China accounted for 50% of global coal consumption in 2014, but now plans to cut around 500 million t of production over the next 3 – 5 yr. This would be achieved by closing more than 5000 coal mines, retraining and relocating workers and not approving any new mines for the next three years.

BB&T Capital Markets coal analyst Mark Levin points to a shrinking number of coal ships at Newcastle Ports and Consol Energy's sale of a US coal mine for US$420 million as signs of a coal revival.

According to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2015, while global coal consumption stopped growing in 2014 for the first time since the 1990s, the main driver was a drop in Chinese demand, with India overtaking the US as the second-largest coal consumer.

However, declining demand and oversupply forced prices of both thermal and metallurgical coal lower in 2015, with import prices for thermal coal in Europe and Asia dropping below US$60/t, while prices for Australian metallurgical coal slipped below US$100/t.

According to the Australian government's Department of Industry, both metallurgical and thermal coal markets are expected to remain well supplied through 2016, placing further downward pressure on prices. It expects metallurgical coal prices to drop by 16% in 2016 to average US$86/t, with thermal prices to decline by 12% to around US$60/t for the Japanese 2016 fiscal year.

Nevertheless, the IEA said it expected worldwide coal consumption to continue growing at a rate of 0.8% a year through to 2020, with the strongest growth seen in ASEAN (up 7.8% a year) and India (up 4.1% per annum). India is seen as replacing China as the world's largest coal importer, with Australia deposing Indonesia as the largest exporter.

With key Asian economies turning to coal for affordable and abundant energy, some 400 GW of power generation capacity – roughly equal to the combined installed capacity of Japan and South Korea – is expected to be added across the region through to 2040, of which 40% will be coal-fired, the World Coal Association noted.

Japan: it's hip to be square

Japan's revival of its shuttered nuclear power industry is set to continue in 2016, but coal's status appears far from threatened despite the nation's commitment to curbing emissions.

In January, Kansai Electric Power Co. resumed operations at the No. 3 unit of its Takahama plant, the third such plant to restart after the Sendai units of Kyushu Electric Power Co. recommenced operations in August 2015. This followed a complete shutdown of the nation's nuclear power industry, comprising 43 plants, in the wake of the March 2011 disasters.

Another three nuclear plants may come online in 2016, with as many as 33 reactors needed to be switched back on to meet the government's target for nuclear to contribute 22% of the nation's energy needs by 2030, according to analysts.

Japan's nuclear shutdown helped thermal coal imports grow to a record 114 million t in 2015, up almost 5%, even while liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports dropped by nearly 4% to 85 million t for their first decline since the disasters.

"The figures are consistent with the government's 2030 basic energy plan, which aims to reduce LNG usage and maintain coal," Tom O'Sullivan of energy consultancy Mathyos Japan told Reuters. "This would seem to contradict the aims of the COP21 conference in December that sought to reduce global carbon emissions."

Under the 2030 plan, coal is expected to account for 26% of total energy, down from 30% in 2015, with LNG dropping to 27% from 43% as part of a decline in fossil fuels to 56% from 88%. The push to restart nuclear power follows a doubling in fuel costs, causing the trade deficit to blow out and electricity rates to surge by nearly 40%.

However, Japan's commitment to lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 26% from 2013 levels by 2030 has put pressure on the power industry, including coal, to curb emissions. The government is expected to set tighter standards for coal-fired plants and 'encourage' inefficient facilities to be scrapped under even tougher targets for emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050 from current levels.

Yet after blocking a reported five new coal projects since June 2015, the Environment Ministry decided in February 2016 to approve the construction of new coal-fired power plants in exchange for tougher standards on emissions. Two coal plants in Ibaraki Prefecture and two in Fukushima Prefecture were expected to be approved under the new guidelines, according to Japan's Nikkei business daily.

Japan could build as many as 41 new coal-fired power plants over the next decade, with some 23 GW of new coal capacity under development as of 2015 compared to total capacity of 41 GW in 2014.

The Japanese industry has sought to curb emissions by investing in new technologies, including the Osaki CoolGen project in Hiroshima, which uses integrated gasification fuel cell combined cycle to curb emissions by as much as 30%.

Japan has also continued to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, including a pilot project to inject carbon dioxide into deep saline aquifers off the coast of the northern island of Hokkaido. The Japanese government has invested a reported US$300 million in the project, with a goal of making CCS a viable technology by 2020.

"It is difficult at this point to estimate how much CO2 emissions will be cut in Japan and how much of that should be achieved through CCS in the future," Takeshi Nagasawa, Director of the Global Environment Partnership Office at Japan's Trade Ministry, told Bloomberg News. "But it is still important to build technologies so that we will be ready when it is needed."

Nevertheless, power use declined in 2015 to its lowest level since 1998 on the back of higher prices, a shrinking manufacturing sector and declining population. The complete liberalisation of the power sector in April 2016 is expected to add to the pressure on utilities, with total revenue of the nation's three largest power generators expected to shrink by 5.5% in fiscal 2016.

According to the Australian government, Japan's metallurgical coal imports are set to remain steady at around 50 million t in 2016 compared to 51 million t in the previous two years. Thermal coal imports are expected to drop from an estimated 144 million t in 2015 to 135 million t as nuclear plants restart and "relieve some of the pressure on coal-fired plants operating at capacity."

Despite weaker resource earnings, Japan's major trading houses are also reportedly on the prowl for new investments. Mitsubishi Corp., estimated as the world's fourth-largest mining business by value of its mining and energy assets, has stated its ambition to double production volumes in metallurgical coal and copper by 2020, requiring an estimated US$12 billion in new investments.

Being the 'odd one out' among the G7 in not curbing coal power does not appear to trouble energy-hungry Japan, which plans on further exports of its ultra-supercritical, low-emission plants, even while it builds more capacity at home.

South Korea: no stopping King Coal

Record coal demand is forecast for South Korea in 2016, following an increase in the number of coal-fired power plants starting operations and despite Seoul's COP21 pledge to curb emissions.

Coal accounted for around 40% of the nation's electricity supply in 2015, despite the government's move to hike the tax on imported coal for power generation. Based on data from Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO), the nation's current coal-fired power plants are operating at around 80% of capacity, but even more plants are planned.

According to the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), South Korean coal demand will increase by over 6% to more than 140 million t in 2016, following the startup of nine new plants with a combined capacity of 7.7 GW.

Asia's fourth-largest economy expects to build 19 new coal-fired power plants by 2022, despite scrapping plans for four new plants as part of its COP21 pledge to curb emissions by 37% by 2030.

"It takes about four to five years to build new power plants and start operations. We just can't cancel the operation of new plants that are already built and ready," an anonymous energy ministry official told Reuters.

In January 2016, the nation imported nearly 10 million t of coal, up 5% from a year earlier. Imports of thermal coal used for power generation were up by nearly 6% y/y, mainly from Australia, Indonesia and Russia.

An OECD report ranked South Korea last among its members in use of renewables, with such power sources accounting for only 1.1% of total energy, compared to its large share from crude oil and coal, which accounted for around two-thirds of primary energy supply.

The Australian government's forecaster expects South Korea's demand for metallurgical coal imports to stay flat in 2016 at some 34 million t, although thermal coal imports are seen rising by around 4% to 106 million t as the new plants come online.

Taiwan: new government's energy dilemma

Taiwan is also set to buck the trend set by the West by actually boosting coal imports in 2016. According to the Australian government's forecaster, the world's fifth-largest coal importer may increase thermal coal imports by over 2% in 2016 to 62 million t.

In 2014, per capita coal consumption amounted to 2.51 t of coal equivalent, behind only Australia (2.66 t) and Kazakhstan (3.15 t). Coal accounted for around 40% of the island's power generation that year, compared to 30% for natural gas and 18% for nuclear, but the nation's three operating nuclear plants are scheduled for decommissioning from 2018.

Construction of a fourth nuclear power plant was halted in 2014 and appears unlikely to restart, given the longstanding opposition to nuclear power from the newly elected Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government.

Nevertheless, Taipei has pledged to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to 2005 levels by 2050, along with introducing a cap-and-trade carbon trading scheme.

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen is seen favouring gas to meet the nation's emission reduction targets, while gradually phasing out nuclear power from 2018. An expanded role for coal is seen as unlikely, given the DPP's aim of reducing the nation's economic reliance on China, its leading supplier.

Conclusion

For Asian coal watchers, the Year of the Monkey may be mischievous, but with demand rising and supply apparently starting to decline there are still plenty of reasons to smile.

Note: This article first appeared in the April 2016 issue of World Coal.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 05:49:51 AM
We can post counter-articles all day long if you want, but in the end people are cheap bastards Mono, governments even more so. If the price of solar keeps plunging as it is, and there's no sign that it won't, then all those governments will start switching over in the next few years.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 06:03:17 AM
I think there are many reasons why governments choose coal over renewables.  The price of the solar panels is but one factor.  Other barriers still exist, for example the lack of space.  You live in this part of the world with high population densities and limited space.  You should know how difficult it is to build a solar farm near Seoul for example.

QuoteBesides, the problem with solar and wind isn't just the price.  There are problems of availability and reliability.  Anybody can build a coal fired power station.  Not every country can build enough solar or wind farms.  Hong Kong for example cannot do either.  Those aren't even on the table.  By their very nature, solar and wind power is weather-dependent.  You are going to need either fossil fuels or nuclear power for reliability. 

I have heard people say "they will switch to solar and wind eventually" for decades.  Hasn't happened yet :contract:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 07:35:20 AM
I see solar panels every day in Korea.

It's happening Mono. Entire countries are running on renewables. It's not just Portugal. Germany hit near 95% earlier this month. Germany has 80 million people, and while it might not be Hong Kong,  it sure ain't Australia. It's crowed and cloudy. If they can do it, any major country can do it.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 08:31:57 AM
And I have seen wind turbines in Hong Kong too.  A single wind turbine.  Just to shut the environmentalists up.  Actually the real goal is to show why it doesn't work :contract:

QuoteOHong Kong at least will go the natural gas route, and we won't consider renewables.

Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2016, 07:10:32 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 06:03:17 AM
I think there are many reasons why governments choose coal over renewables.  The price of the solar panels is but one factor.  Other barriers still exist, for example the lack of space.  You live in this part of the world with high population densities and limited space.  You should know how difficult it is to build a solar farm near Seoul for example.

Coal mines and coal plants do not require space? Fascinating. Please tell me more about these miniaturized mines and plants you have in Asia.

QuoteBesides, the problem with solar and wind isn't just the price.  There are problems of availability and reliability.  Anybody can build a coal fired power station.  Not every country can build enough solar or wind farms.  Hong Kong for example cannot do either.  Those aren't even on the table.  By their very nature, solar and wind power is weather-dependent.  You are going to need either fossil fuels or nuclear power for reliability. 

I have heard people say "they will switch to solar and wind eventually" for decades.  Hasn't happened yet :contract:

I haven't heard people say that. What I have heard them say is 'the technology still has a ways to go until it is viable'. Now it is viable. And no not just anybody can build a coal fired power station they are very expensive and complicated engineering enterprises. Availability and reliability are no longer serious issues.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 09:05:29 AM
In 2014 China led the world in added solar capacity. Japan was number 2 and South Korea number 8. As of 2014 China's total capacity was 2nd in the world and Japn 3rd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#Top_10_ranking_of_worldwide_photovoltaic_installation

You're living in a fantasy world. It's not just Europe and North America leading the way. East Asia is a prime innovator and adapter.

QuoteChina has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China's renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.

But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China's energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China's reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.

Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation.

In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
 
From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
 
At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years. 
 
And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.

Helping China cut its coal emissions should be a top priority for all nations, including improving energy efficiencies further, using even more renewable energy, and deploying CO2 capture and storage technologies. The U.S. could go a long way to encouraging this by pursuing more aggressive CO2 reduction efforts at home.

China burns more than 4 billion tons of coal each year in power plants, homes, and factories. By comparison, the U.S. burns less than 1 billion, and the entire European Union burns 600 million. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest global CO2 emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. emissions by 2017. While projections for the U.S. and Europe are for steady or decreasing coal use in the coming decades, barring major policy shifts, China's coal use is expected to keep increasing.

Economists predict that by 2040, China's coal power fleet will be 50 percent larger than it is today. Once these coal-fired power plants are built, they typically run for 40 years, or longer, which means a commitment to decades of CO2 emissions. The climate impact of those emissions will be nearly impossible to reverse.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its estimate of the allowable total cumulative global CO2 emissions between 2012 and 2100 to prevent the global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. Beyond 2C warming the impacts of climate change will be increasingly severe, including more and longer heat waves, damaging levels of sea level rise, increased heavy rains and flooding, more persistent and hotter droughts, and increasingly acidic oceans.

If China's coal use continues to increase as predicted, by 2040 China will have consumed more than a third of that global budget. Combined with the U.S. and the rest of the world, China's emissions have the planet on a path to surpass the global budget by 2040.

Some people say it is unfair to single out China, and that is not the intention here. Historically speaking, the U.S. is the largest CO2 emitter. And some of China's emissions come from manufacturing goods that get exported to the U.S. and other countries. It is also true that the U.S. and the European Union have far higher emissions per capita, even as their overall emissions are slowly declining. 

But the reality is that China, because of its sheer size, is in a position to do more than any other country to stop the world from going off the proverbial climate cliff. With the current coal trajectory of China, all the windmills in the world won't deliver our children a climate they can depend on.

Eric Larson is a senior scientist for Climate Central and a research engineer with the Energy Systems Analysis Group at the Princeton Environmental Institute.

Quote from: grumbler on May 24, 2016, 09:43:35 AM
I've heard the climate change deniers for years, but Mono is the first renewable energy denier I have run across.  Change "renewable" to "climate change" in his posts and he sounds just like Siege.

I'm hoping he is trolling like Siege is.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 06:03:17 AM
You live in this part of the world with high population densities and limited space.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 08:42:09 AM
Think about it this way.  The coal-based electricity generation capacity in China is the largest in the world.  Probably several times the coal-based electricity generation capacity in the US.  That means, what China does will probably make or break the effort to stop global warming.  Who calls the shots on this?  The politburo of the Communist Party of China.  I think you will find that their concerns and calculations are somewhat different from yours :contract:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2016, 11:39:36 AM
The statistic that is never given is the smallest percentage of a country's (or network's) energy produced by renewables in a given time period. Yet in many ways it is a more important figure than the maximum, getting the maximum and minimum closer together is probably the main challenge right now.

Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2016, 12:55:41 PM
How do you store energy? That's like bottling a dream.

QuoteMinistry plans phase II of solar parks, doubles target to 40,000 MW

By Kaavya Chandrasekaran,

NEW DELHI: The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is planning a second phase of setting up solar parks across the country, twice as ambitious as the first. Unlike the previous one, the new round will set aside a portion where the solar power producer will also have to set up facility to store the energy in batteries.

In the first phase, formulated in 2014-15, vacant land capable of hosting solar panels to produce 20,000 MW had to be earmarked and acquired, and the necessary infrastructure, such as transmission lines, put in place for developers to set up solar projects. By the end March this year, 33 such areas in 21 states that could house 19,900 MW of projects had been identified — it takes about 5-6 acres to build 1 MW of installed capacity. While infrastructure at these places are at various stages of completion, some of the parks are ready to be handed over to project developers. Auctions have been held to allot some of these.

In Phase-II, the ministry wants to identify land capable of accommodating 40,000 MW in about 25 states. "This will include storage of about 200-300 MW," said MNRE Secretary Upendra Tripathy.

Until now, solar developers didn't bother about storage, promptly transferring the power they generated to the grid. Storage is necessary to ensure continuous solar power supply — since power generation can vary widely depending on the sun's intensity — but it is also expensive, almost doubling capital costs. A few pilot projects that consist of storage are in the pipeline, including 100 MW of storage at a solar park in Andhra Pradesh.

In the first phase, the MNRE provided financial support through viability gap funding (VGF) of Rs 20 lakh per MW, or 30% of the cost of developing the park, whichever was lower. This may be increased in the second phase if storage is included. "We expect storage to require a higher VGF," said Tripathy. "We are also thinking of thinking of launching a National Storage Mission."

Each park under Phase-I has a solar power park developer (SPPD) — usually, a venturebetween the Solar Corporation of India and the nodal agency for renewable energy in the state where the project is coming up. In Rajasthan and Maharashtra, private entities have also been roped in. "In the second phase, we will be strengthening the role of the state nodal agencies," said Tripathy. "They will have the option to run the solar projects themselves and benefit from the income."

Global developers prefer setting up their projects in solar parks because they don't have to worry about acquiring land, which the government takes care of. "There have been requests from foreign companies, as well as from states which have available land, to set up more solar parks," said an analyst. "Also, the solar rooftop programme is proceeding very slowly. The government is likely to achieve only around 20,000 MW by 2022 (from rooftop installations), against the target of 40,000 MW. effort is to make up the shortfall by having more ground projects at solar parks."

Currently, India has rooftop installations to produce only around 300 MW.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2016, 05:54:31 PM

Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2016, 12:55:41 PM
How do you store energy? That's like bottling a dream.

Batteries.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 06:03:17 AM

I think there are many reasons why governments choose coal over renewables.  The price of the solar panels is but one factor.  Other barriers still exist, for example the lack of space.  You live in this part of the world with high population densities and limited space.  You should know how difficult it is to build a solar farm near Seoul for example.   

Quote from: dps on June 17, 2016, 07:07:20 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 24, 2016, 06:03:17 AM

I think there are many reasons why governments choose coal over renewables.  The price of the solar panels is but one factor.  Other barriers still exist, for example the lack of space.  You live in this part of the world with high population densities and limited space.  You should know how difficult it is to build a solar farm near Seoul for example.   

There are things sometimes called power lines that transmit electricity from where it's generated to where it's used.  You are aware of their existence, aren't you?  You don't have to have a power plant next door in order to have electricity in your building.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 23, 2016, 10:01:32 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2016, 09:54:23 AM


No incentives are needed. We will demonstrate it is better then everybody will follow suit, even the local party chiefs.

Somehow I don't think you or I know what goes on in the heads of the local party chiefs.  They seem to operate in their own worlds.  What I am quite sure is that global warming doesn't feature in their calculus :contract:

Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2016, 05:45:51 AM
Global warming is a hoax.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2016, 08:11:47 AM
I have no doubt that India is building solar and wind plants.  But unlike, say, Europe, they aren't replacing the coal plants with these new energy sources.  They are doing both.  India doubling its coal production and consumption is more than enough to offset the planned changes brought about by whatever solar and wind plants they plan to build. 

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2016, 08:09:27 PM


So? Before it would have been entirely Coal. Now coal is being extracted to service old technology. Soon they will not extract coal but use superior technologies for their energy needs.

I am sure at some point a few decades ago India and China were also producing massive amounts of typewriters but that was not proof that typewriters were about to dominate computers.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2016, 09:00:04 PM
Presumably you care whether you breathe air or chew it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2016, 09:10:32 PM
What can you do about the price, availability, and reliability of electricity? :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 08:54:04 PM
The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2016, 10:18:43 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 08:54:04 PM
The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

They why are you such a fan of a system that is backwards, antiquated, and clearly inferior in all three categories? :hmm:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
Solar and wind are still not mainstream, they require specific know-how and a new supply chain needs to be set up.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 08:54:04 PM
The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

Quote from: dps on June 19, 2016, 11:25:29 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 08:54:04 PM
The only things I care are price, availability and reliability. 

As far as availability and reliability is concerned, with electricity, the transmission system is far, far more of a factor than any question of how the electricity is generated.  When people lose electric service, it's because some transformers blew or because a storm knocked down electric lines, not because the power station quit generating electricity.  At least, that's how it works in any country with a decent electric net.  God only knows how it works in China--probably people lose electric service because someone forgot to pay the proper bribes to the correct party chief, but that still doesn't really have anything to do with the how the electricity was actually generated.

As far a price is concerned, I'm not sure it would make any difference to the actual consumer.  All (or almost all ) of the cost of solar or wind power is upfront--once you've built the plant, the wind sunshine and wind are just there--you don't have to go explore for them or have someone mine them.  With coal, even if you are using existing mines that won't run out for decades, you've still got to pay someone to mine the stuff, not that I figure coal miners in China are getting rich or anything.

And anyway, this bit about "I only care about thing I can do something about" is bullshit in this context.  Yeah, you can somewhat control the cost of the electricity you use by cutting back and using less, but you can't do anything about the actual price of it, much less the availability or reliability.  And you can't do anything about how China chooses to produce electricity, either, so if you only care about things you can do something about, why are you so opposed to new technologies?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 02:49:47 AM
The fuel that, say, Hong Kong chooses should be based on cost and reliability considerations, not carbon emissions.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2016, 03:23:25 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 02:49:47 AM
The fuel that, say, Hong Kong chooses should be based on cost and reliability considerations, not carbon emissions.

This is a very different position than your previous one about inability to affect the outcome.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
I am talking about different entities.  I did mention I was talking about me personally in my previous post.  Here I am talking about Hong Kong as a matter of public policy .  Hong Kong of course can choose its electricity generating fuel mix.  In matters of public polocy, air quality shoulud be a consideration.  For me personally, I don't give me damn if they make mice run on wheels to give me electricity, as long as the price is the same.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2016, 03:51:39 AM


If you don't give a damn, then why do you think Hong Kong should take air quality into consideration? 

Should Hong Kong take global warming into consideration?

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 03:54:36 AM
Huh?  Of course the government should take the welfare of its citizens into consideration, and of course welfare includes air quality.

QuoteHong Kong should not take global warming into consideration because Hong Kong cannot affect its outcome.  But, say the United Nations should.  If I were a UN staff officer I would be telling everybody to switch to solar and wind immediately :contract:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2016, 03:58:21 AM

Do you mean you don't care about air quality but other residents do? 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2016, 03:58:21 AM

The UN has no enforcement authority.  Carbon emissions are under the jurisdiction of sovereign states, and therefore any efforts to curtail them have to be voluntary.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
First I don't think coal is inferior.

QuoteIt is an established technology that is relatively inexpensive, easy to set up, with a stable supply chain.

QuoteIf global warming isn't a consideration, coal is a very viable choice in public policy.  Solar and wind are still not mainstream, they require specific know-how and a new supply chain needs to be set up.

QuoteI also have a lot of doubt over the claimed advantages.

QuoteLet's face it, you guys are doing it for global warming.

QuoteIf that is discounted, I don't believe that coal is totally uncompetitive.

QuoteSecondly, I am not saying "Coal is the future!!!111".  I am saying, despite the claim that a green energy revolution is supposed to be happening, many governments are still choosing coal.

QuoteOnce built, the coal power stations will run for decades.

QuoteIn Europe, the governments are using solar and wind to replace coal.  In Asia, they are building lots of solar panels, but an even greater amount of coal power capacity at the same time.

QuoteWhatever climate goals that you guys want to achieve may well be unattainable.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 04:01:53 AM
Well, it affects everybody, but only the government is in any capacity to act. 

Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2016, 02:31:17 PM
I heard that Taiwan decided to go for more coal power. Morans.

QuoteMapping coal's decline and the renewables' rise

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.phys.org%2Fnewman%2Fgfx%2Fnews%2F2016%2Fmappingcoals.jpg&hash=dd32bb21479b19533060cabccc128bfd70e4b2b4)

Even as coal-fired power plants across the U.S. are shutting down in response to new environmental regulations and policy mandates, defenders of the emissions-heavy fuel still have cost on their side. Coal, after all, is cheap—or so it seems. This perception makes it difficult for alternative, low-carbon energy sources like solar and wind to compete.
A new study from MIT researchers, however, shows that coal's economic edge may soon be far thinner than we think. In a working paper for the MIT Energy Initiative, graduate students Joel Jean, David C. Borrelli, and Tony Wu show how replacing current coal-fired power plants with wind and solar photovoltaic generation facilities could provide benefits for the environment and for bottom lines in the near future.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 23, 2016, 09:40:25 AM
Aww, they're retiring the coal plant in Valmy, NV?  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2016, 01:55:13 PM
There are only 29 coal fired generators left in the US?  That can't be right.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2016, 01:55:13 PM
There are only 29 coal fired generators left in the US?  That can't be right.

Quote from: frunk on June 23, 2016, 01:58:56 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2016, 01:55:13 PM
There are only 29 coal fired generators left in the US?  That can't be right.

It's the number at a given carbon price per ton.  I'm not sure exactly why that means these particular plants are notable over others.

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 02:03:25 PM
It is showing how many would be built under those conditions.

QuoteCoalMap is an online tool that allows users explore the potential effects of various market factors on the cost-competitiveness of coal versus renewable energy. Here, the variable being tested is a carbon price, set to $50/ ton. The map shows the number of coal plants (red dots), wind farms (green dots), and solar photovoltaic plants (yellow dots) that could exist in the market at this price point. Gray dots represent coal plants in the process of retiring, and black dots represent those that have already retired

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-coal-decline-renewables.html#jCp

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 02:08:25 PM
So the Gray and Black dots represent what has already happened?

Because we have coal plants in Texas, I have visited and inspected a few, and this map would suggest they are neither going to be existing or retired if we have a carbon price at $50/ton :hmm:

Quote from: frunk on June 23, 2016, 02:13:13 PM
Grey and black is what has already happened, all the other dots are the plants that would stay in business given the carbon tax.  All other plants are completely ignored.

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 02:16:12 PM
Well that isn't confusing at all. All of California's coal plants are going away and absolutely no PV or wind is going to be built to replace it eh?

QuoteUS, Canada and Mexico pledge 50% of power from clean energy by 2025
Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto to announce new 'aggressive but achievable' goal at 'Three Amigos' summit in Ottawa

Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto will commit to a new regional clean power goal at a summit this week in Ottawa, the White House has said.

The leaders of the US, Canada and Mexico, meeting on Wednesday at the so-called "Three Amigos" summit, will pledge to have their countries produce 50% of their power by 2025 from hydropower, wind, solar and nuclear plants, carbon capture and storage, as well as from energy efficiency measures.

"We believe this is an aggressive goal, but for all three countries, one that we believe is achievable, continent-wide," said Brian Deese, a senior adviser to Obama.

It is a jump from the current collective clean power levels of about 37% and will require the most work from the United States, which produces about 75% of the countries' power.

About a third of US power now comes from clean energy sources.

Curbing climate-changing carbon emissions has been a priority for Obama as the end of his second and final term in office draws closer.

But his new regulations on coal-fired power plants – the main US tool to reach emissions targets pledged at UN climate talks in Paris in December 2015 – were put on hold by the US supreme court earlier this year.

The White House believes its Clean Power Plan rules will ultimately survive the challenge. The rules, along with tax credits for renewable power plants, would help the United States do its share to reach the North American goal, Deese said.

He said it would not be necessary for the United States itself to hit the 50% mark to achieve the regional target.

Mexico produced less than 20% of its power from clean energy, Deese said, noting officials there had already pledged to reach 35% by 2024.

Canada produces 81% of its electricity from hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear power generation, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, which first reported the North American deal on Monday.

At the Wednesday summit the leaders also would announce new agreements to make it easier and cheaper to trade and transmit clean energy across the continent, Deese said.

Mexico would will join a pledge made earlier this year by Obama and Trudeau to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% by 2015, he said.

QuoteAbout a third of US power now comes from clean energy sources.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2016, 02:22:47 PM
Map sucks.

Quote

The Ozone Hole Is Finally Healing
Maddie Stone
Yesterday 2:00pm
· Filed to: everything isn't terrible

Nearly thirty years after an international treaty banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons, the Antarctic ozone hole is finally starting to heal. By mid to late century, it should be fully recovered.

"This is a reminder that when the world gets together, we really can solve environmental problems," Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist at MIT, told Gizmodo. "I think we should all congratulate ourselves on a job well done."

Solomon is lead author on a study published today in Science, which presents the clearest evidence yet that the Antarctic ozone hole is showing signs of long-term recovery. The researchers attribute this to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which banned the use of chlorinated compounds in refrigerator coolants and aerosols, after scientists learned that these chemicals were making their way into the stratosphere and wreaking havoc on Earth's ozone layer.

Scientists have been monitoring the Antarctic ozone hole, which opens every year in late August or early September and reaches its full size by October, since the 1980s. The size of the ozone hole varies widely from year to year, because the chemical reactions that destroy ozone are highly sensitive to changes in sunlight, temperature, and stratospheric cloud cover. For researchers interested in tracking ozone recovery, the challenge lies in pulling a faint signal out of a noisy background.

This problem piqued the interest of Solomon and her co-authors last October, when the ozone hole reached a record size of 23 million square kilometers (9 million square miles); some 20 percent larger than the previous year. "This was very unexpected, and we thought that the reason might have to do with volcanoes," Solomon said, explaining that the aerosols released during volcanic eruptions contribute to polar stratospheric clouds, creating additional surface area for ozone-destroying reactions to occur.

Sure enough, the team was able to show that a string of eruptions at the Calbuco volcano in the southern hemisphere widened the spring ozone hole. But they discovered something else, too. "We learned that the September is not nearly as variable in weather as October, and that it's less sensitive to volcanic activity," Solomon said.

This got the researchers thinking that September may be the best month for teasing out subtle signs of ozone recovery. So they assembled September records from 2000 to 2015, including data on the rate at which the ozone hole opens, its average size and depth, meteorological conditions and volcanic activity.

"We found that because there is less chlorine in the atmosphere, the ozone hole is opening about ten days later than it used to," Solomon said. "That has a huge effect on the September average." Overall, Solomon's analysis showed that the September ozone hole has shrunk by an average of 4.5 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) since 2000.

Susan Strahan, an atmospheric chemist at NASA who was not involved with the study, agrees that the evidence is very encouraging. "This is the emergence of a trend," she told Gizmodo, while cautioning that it's a bit early to say exactly how the recovery will play out. That's because the different chlorofluorocarbons present in the atmosphere degrade at different rates, and while some have already vanished, others will stick around for decades to come. Most researchers, however, expect the ozone hole to be fully patched by around 2060.

"It's important," Strahan continued, "because I think a lot of people feel that environmental stories always have bad endings. In this case, the recovery will happen, but it'll take time."

QuoteSolar Power Is Finding Its Day in the Sun

by  Reuters  JULY 5, 2016, 7:36 AM EDT
E-mail  Tweet  Facebook  Linkedin

So should we stop subsidizing pricey rooftop installations?

Solar power is on pace for the first time this year to contribute more new electricity to the grid than will any other form of energy—a feat driven more by economics than green mandates.
The cost of electricity from large-scale solar installations now is comparable to and sometimes cheaper than natural gas-fired power, even without incentives aimed at promoting environmentally friendly power, according to industry players and outside cost studies.

Buoyed by appeals to self-reliance and environmental stewardship, as well as government subsidies, the early solar industry was dominated by rooftop panels that powered individual homes and businesses. But such small-scale installations are expensive, requiring hefty incentives to make them attractive to homeowners.

Today, large systems that sell directly to utilities dominate. They are expected to account for more than 70% of new solar added to the grid this year, according to industry research firm GTM Research.
The success of large-scale solar has raised questions about the wisdom of continuing incentives for rooftop installations, which remain far more expensive than most other forms of electricity.

Unsubsidized utility-scale solar power costs $50 to $70 per megawatt-hour (or 5 to 7 cents a kilowatt hour), compared with $52 to $78 for the most efficient type of gas plant, according to a 2015 study by investment bank Lazard.

Generating power from residential rooftop panels is far more expensive, ranging from $184 to $300 a MWh before subsidies, the report said.

"If you take a solar panel from someone's rooftop and put it in a field, the amount you would pay for that power drops precipitously," said Matt Freedman, an attorney with California ratepayer advocate The Utility Reform Network. "What's the magic of having it on the rooftop? It's not clear."

Going Big

Many trace the tipping point for utility-scale solar to a 2014 announcement by Austin Energy that it would buy power from a new 150 megawatt solar plant—enough to light and cool 30,000 homes—for 5 cents a kilowatt hour. At the time, it was a record low price for solar power. Since then, projects have brought the price below 4 cents a kWh.

The Austin Energy contract opened a market for big solar in sunny Southeastern states, Jim Hughes, chief executive of utility-scale solar developer First Solar told investors in April.

"The response has been, quite honestly, astonishing," Hughes told them. "The utility world suddenly sat up and took notice and said, I had no idea that's where the cost of solar stood."

Large-scale solar is taking off even in states without policies promoting green power.

Georgia, for example, was the sixth-largest U.S. solar market last year with very little rooftop solar.

"We don't need mandates," said Lauren "Bubba" McDonald, a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission, who is widely credited with helping jumpstart the state's solar industry.

Utilities in states like North Carolina, Texas, and Alabama also are building large-scale solar facilities because it makes financial sense.

"We are seeing large swaths of centralized utility-scale solar be procured primarily because of how cost competitive it is," said Cory Honeyman, who follows the U.S. solar industry for market research firm GTM Research. "That's a different kind of narrative."

Subsidy Scrutiny

Rooftop installers like SolarCity  SCTY -1.58%  enjoyed rapid growth thanks in part to a marketing message that peddles the romance and freedom of generating emissions-free power at home. And, for homeowners in states with favorable policies, rooftop panels can be a good investment, ultimately offering savings.

But the math only works in places with so-called "net metering" laws, which require utilities to buy the electricity rooftop panels generate at prices far above what they pay for centralized power.

To what extent governments and ratepayers should support rooftop solar is a matter of debate in several state legislatures and utility commissions.

Opponents argue that as more homeowners go solar, other ratepayers are left to shoulder the cost of maintaining the electrical grid, which solar owners still use when the sun isn't shining.

Advocates counter that the higher the concentration of rooftop solar systems in a neighborhood, the less a utility has to spend on distribution to shore up grid reliability.

Last year, at least 24 states reviewed or made decisions to study the value of rooftop solar, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, which compiles a database of state renewable energy incentives. The studies aim to determine what benefits, if any, on-site solar delivers above the simple cost of power.

But there is little consensus. In Louisiana and California, for instance, studies commissioned by state regulators found that net metering policies resulted in higher costs for all ratepayers. Studies in Mississippi and Minnesota, on the other hand, found the policy provided a net benefit.

A major difference among the studies is whether they consider as part of the equation the environmental benefits of solar, which can be difficult to quantify.

"I'd put the value of solar in the eye of the beholder," said Brian Lips, who manages the incentives database for the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center.

Rooftop solar's dependence on incentives is a key reason investors have punished solar stocks in the last year.

Tesla Motors  TSLA -0.94%  is seeking to take advantage of that weakness by buying rooftop installer SolarCity.

Elon Musk, Tesla's founder and chief executive, also is the chairman of and largest shareholder in SolarCity. Musk has touted the benefits of bundling rooftop solar with home battery storage and electric cars in promoting the takeover.

But many of the electric vehicle maker's shareholders are wary of a deal they see as risky.

And last year hedge fund manager David Tepper sought to block SunEdison  SUNE 0.00%  and TerraForm Power's acquisition of installer Vivint Solar on his assessment that rooftop assets were inferior to solar power plants, which have long-term contracts with utilities.

In a bid to stay relevant, some rooftop solar companies are expanding their repertoire. In May, for instance, SolarCity introduced a set of services for utilities, including development of solar power plants, battery storage, and other grid planning resources.

SunPower said in June it would it would offer solar systems with battery storage to 300 New York homeowners in what would serve as a "virtual power plant" to utility Con Edison.

Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2016, 11:17:50 AM
I think burning tires is the next step in the energy revolution.  I mean, they're pretty much free.  And they burn.

Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2016, 01:20:43 PM
I guess people burn, too.  But I'd rather not go that route if it can be avoided.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2016, 09:51:15 AM
China dominates the planet in solar panel manufacture.  Not even close.
China also installed more new solar generation capacity last year than the US and the entire EU combined.

QuoteThe technology for renewables and nuclear were in the hands of foreigners.  They wanted energy self-reliance, and China was the world's largest producer of coal.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 01:22:14 AM
  There were too many vested interests, so they wouldn't touch it. The technology for renewables and nuclear were in the hands of foreigners.  They wanted energy self-reliance, and China was the world's largest producer of coal.  There was scope to burn coal more efficiently, and that would be their focus.  Not replacing coal with solar.

Quote from: derspiess on July 19, 2016, 10:10:15 AM
China just needs to create more green jobs.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2016, 10:07:16 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 01:22:14 AM
  There were too many vested interests, so they wouldn't touch it. The technology for renewables and nuclear were in the hands of foreigners.  They wanted energy self-reliance, and China was the world's largest producer of coal.  There was scope to burn coal more efficiently, and that would be their focus.  Not replacing coal with solar.

This is such a ridiculously huge lie that even Gobbels would pause at it. China is far and away the world's largest producer of solar panels.

Quote from: Valmy on July 19, 2016, 09:54:38 AM


Well steam power was invented by foreigners to better not use that technology! Is China going to destroy all its computers and cars as well! We want transportation and data self reliance! We will be the world's largest producer of ox carts and scribes!

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
Also, I am repeating myself here but I don't think the ox cart/steam power analogy works.  As a consumer, I clearly want to drive a car, not an ox cart.  But I can't care less if my electricity comes from a coal plant or a solar farm. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
Also, I am repeating myself here but I don't think the ox cart/steam power analogy works.  As a consumer, I clearly want to drive a car, not an ox cart.  But I can't care less if my electricity comes from a coal plant or a solar farm.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2016, 10:29:28 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
Also, I am repeating myself here but I don't think the ox cart/steam power analogy works.  As a consumer, I clearly want to drive a car, not an ox cart.  But I can't care less if my electricity comes from a coal plant or a solar farm.

Given the air quality in China I find that hard to believe.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:32:46 AM

Why?  The thing with air quality is that making one small change won't make any material difference.  Just because I walk to my office instead of driving a car won't improve the quality of the air that I breath in.  Change on a much larger scale is needed.  Since that's not something I can achieve on my own, might as well give up.

Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2016, 10:38:14 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:32:46 AM

Why?  The thing with air quality is that making one small change won't make any material difference.  Just because I walk to my office instead of driving a car won't improve the quality of the air that I breath in.  Change on a much larger scale is needed.  Since that's not something I can achieve on my own, might as well give up.

I'm starting to think that either people completely forget what you write within a day or two, or that somehow they've presented the information in a way that will cause you to have a sudden revelation.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:45:04 AM
You have lost me  :lol:

Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2016, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2016, 10:45:04 AM
You have lost me  :lol:

You've had the same position on these matters for years and they haven't changed, yet people are always shocked when you say them.

Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2016, 10:47:19 AM
You've had the same position on these matters for years and they haven't changed, yet people are always shocked when you say them.

Quote from: Valmy on July 19, 2016, 09:54:38 AM
So how is that possible if no coal is being replaced with solar? Maybe they just have all that capacity connected to nothing at all.

QuoteThat is the most incomprehensibly stupid statement I have ever heard in my life.

Quote from: derspiess on July 14, 2016, 01:20:43 PM
I guess people burn, too.  But I'd rather not go that route if it can be avoided.

QuoteObama makes new push on solar power
 

By Timothy Cama - 07/19/16 01:00 PM EDT

The Obama administration is making a new large-scale effort to encourage deployment and use of rooftop solar power on homes.

Numerous agencies announced new or strengthened coordinated efforts Tuesday aimed at increasing solar installations in houses owned by low- and moderate-income Americans, including a new goal for solar installations and a policy change to increase access to a key financing mechanism for solar power and energy efficiency.

"This is an approach that cuts across the government to try to take advantage of the fact that the cost of renewable technologies has come down dramatically during President Obama's tenure, and we want to advantage of that a try to encourage more homeowners to actually benefit directly from that dynamic," Brian Deese, a top adviser to Obama, told reporters.
The administration is dubbing the effort the "Clean Energy for All Americans Initiative."

The initiative marks another major push for solar power, which the administration has sought to highlight as a significant bright spot not only in the fight against climate change but also in economic and job development.

Generating capacity in the solar industry has skyrocketed under Obama, growing more than threefold from 2008 to 2015. Meanwhile, costs have fallen dramatically and job growth greatly outpaces that in the rest of the economy.

Still, solar power is a small sliver of the country's total electricity generation, representing only 0.6 percent last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

The most significant piece of Tuesday's announcement is a policy change to expand access to the Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which allows homeowners to install renewable and energy efficiency projects at no upfront cost, paying the costs over time through taxes.

The Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs will now allow some people using those agencies' financing mechanisms to buy houses with existing tax debts under PACE. The administration expects that will make it easier both to sell and buy homes with those improvements.

"That'll unlock a significant sum of money, and help tens of thousands of homeowners actually be part of putting renewable energy in some form in their homes," California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), a strong supporter of the program, told reporters about the announcement.

"At the local level, there will be more lending money available, and therefore, there will be more solar installations, more energy retrofits in buildings."

The administration is setting a new goal for low-income solar installations. It wants 1 gigawatt of solar capacity on low- and moderate-income homes by 2020, up from the 100 megawatt goal it previously set for low-income housing that receives federal support.

The Department of Energy is also putting new effort into its project to train solar workers by launching a new networking program. That department's also unveiling a competitive grant program for communities to develop innovating ways to expand solar access.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2016, 06:46:24 PM
Seems to be inefficent at this point. Solar has become so cheap that it's better to pour all our resources into utility level solar farms.

Quote from: citizen k on July 19, 2016, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2016, 06:46:24 PM
Seems to be inefficent at this point. Solar has become so cheap that it's better to pour all our resources into utility level solar farms.

Yeah, let's trash a bunch of ecosystems. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 19, 2016, 09:04:30 PM
My green energy revolution involves rounding up nerds, anime tards, Patriots fans and Yinzers and burn them in ovens.

Quote from: citizen k on July 19, 2016, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 19, 2016, 06:46:24 PM
Seems to be inefficent at this point. Solar has become so cheap that it's better to pour all our resources into utility level solar farms.

Yeah, let's trash a bunch of ecosystems. :rolleyes:

Quote from: 11B4V on July 19, 2016, 09:20:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on July 19, 2016, 09:04:30 PM
My green energy revolution involves rounding up nerds, anime tards, Patriots fans and Yinzers and burn them in ovens.

Add pokeman go nards to that list please.

Quote
China installed 20 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity in the first half of 2016, three times as much as during the same period a year ago, state news agency Xinhua reported late on Thursday citing the country's largest solar industry lobby.

The surge in capacity extended China's lead over Germany as the top solar generator, said Wang Bohua, General Secretary of the China Photovoltaic Industry Association (CPIA), according to Xinhua.

Power developers were also pushed to complete installations ahead of a proposed reduction in the price paid for solar power by grid operators, said Wang.

China' government decreed in late 2015 that only projects that were operational by June 30, 2016, would be eligible for a 'feed-in tariff' of roughly 1.0 yuan (15 U.S. cents) per kilowatt hour (kwh), while projects completed after that date would be eligible for a lower tariff rate.

Production of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules also increased to 27 GW, up by 37.8 percent in the first half of the year, the CPIA said in a report on its website, adding that the profit margins of the major manufacturers improved to an average of 5 percent from 4.85 percent last year.

China surpassed Germany as the largest solar power generator worldwide last year, with installed PV capacity totaling 43 GW as of the end of 2015.

The government has set a national target for new commercial solar power capacity of 18.1 GW for this year, which is below initial market expectations and is a sign that the government is trying to slow capacity expansion in the power generation sector.

Including experimental roof-top projects and charitable installations in impoverished areas, total new solar capacity is expected to be 30 GW by year-end, CPIA said.

The CPIA data showed that the western provinces have the greatest surplus capacity, with the provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu wasting 52 percent and 39 percent of their respective generated solar power in the first quarter.

China's solar power output increased 31.3 percent from a year ago in June to 3,300 gigawatt hours, according to the National Statistics Bureau. That equated to 0.7 percent of total power generation, and was the first time the statistics bureau carried solar output data.


(Reporting By Kathy Chen; Editing by Christian Schmollinger)

QuoteThe American solar industry now employs more than a quarter of a million people, after a breakneck year that saw employment grow by a record 25 percent — and that growth is expected to continue into 2017, as low-cost solar panels nudge coal and natural gas out of the electricity marketplace.

California led the country with 100,050 solar jobs in 2016, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonprofit Solar Foundation. That was up from about 75,600 solar jobs in 2015. Nationwide, the group found, the solar workforce grew from 209,000 in 2015 to more than 260,000 last year — the fastest growth the Solar Foundation has seen in the seven years it's been publishing this data.

"The solar industry currently has more (U.S.) workers than Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon combined," said Andrea Luecke, the Solar Foundation's executive director.

The group's report includes plenty more statistics showing the industry's remarkable growth:

•Between November 2015 and November 2016, one in every 50 new jobs in the United States was created by the solar industry
•The solar industry added workers 17 times faster than the overall economy over that time frame
•There are now nearly three times as many people working in the solar industry as there were in 2010

Perhaps even more striking is a report released last month by the federal Department of Energy, comparing employment across different energy sectors. Using slightly different statistics than the Solar Foundation, the department found that the solar industry employs more people than coal, natural gas and wind. Among energy sectors, only oil and petroleum employs more people than solar.


"These are well-paying jobs, these are family-sustaining jobs. And many positions have a low barrier to entry — you don't have to have a bachelor's education," Luecke said. "It really does represent an opportunity for Americans in rural areas, and urban areas on the coast, and in the center of the country."

Read the article at the source to see a nice graph

QuoteEnergy jobs by sector: Solar beating coal, gas

The solar industry ranks second in total employment among energy industries, according to a January 2017 report from the federal Department of Energy. (Note: For the purposes of its report, the Department of Energy defined workers in each of these industries as people who spend "some portion" of their time supporting that industry. That's why its employment figure for solar, 373,807, is higher than the Solar Foundation's jobs number of 260,077. The Solar Foundation only counts workers who spend at least 50 percent of their time on solar-related work.)

Here in the desert, sprawling fields of solar panels and smaller rooftop systems have both contributed to the industry's rapid growth.

Two large-scale solar farms opened in Riverside County in 2016: NextEra's Blythe and McCoy projects, near the Arizona border, which generate enough clean energy to power 181,000 homes and employed a combined 1,500 people at the height of construction. Several other big solar farms are being developed in the eastern part of the county, although they haven't yet reached construction.

In the Coachella Valley, rooftop solar installers keep adding employees.

Vincent Battaglia, chief executive of the Palm Desert-based Renova Solar, said his company added 23 employees last year, putting its workforce above 150. Nate Otto, president of Palm Springs-based Hot Purple Energy, said his company grew its workforce by 10 percent in 2016, and now employs about 35 people. Planet Solar, which is based in Santa Barbara and has an office in Palm Desert, grew its staff by 10 percent statewide, according to Jill Weiss, a regional sales consultant at the local office.

"Solar's been growing every year, and we expect that to continue as people realize the economic value of solar," Weiss said. "The first wave of solar installations was almost 10 years ago here in the Coachella Valley. We've got 10 years of data now, and people are really seeing the results of their neighbors and other people in their communities going solar. It's becoming mainstream."

Another nice graph

QuoteSolar jobs by state: California leads the way
California led the nation with 100,050 solar jobs in 2016 — more than the next nine states combined, according to the latest report from the nonprofit Solar Foundation.

The solar industry's rapid growth isn't limited to the Coachella Valley, or to California. While the Golden State — with its strong sunlight and policies encouraging clean energy development — leads the nation in solar employment, Massachusetts, Nevada and Vermont have more solar jobs per capita. And several other states saw faster job growth than California in 2016, with New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and others growing their solar workforce by at least 50 percent last year, according to the Solar Foundation's report.

That growth has been driven by the falling cost of solar panels. GTM Research, a clean-tech consulting firm, reported last month that some big solar farms are now being priced below $1 per Watt, down from $4 per Watt in 2011. The speed of those cost reductions has surprised analysts: As recently as last summer, GTM didn't think the industry would achieve $1 per Watt until 2020.

Across much of the country, in fact, solar and wind power are now cheaper than fossil fuels.

In December, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin published a color-coded map showing the lowest-cost source of new electricity generation for every county in the United States. Their findings were striking: Natural gas is the cheapest option across most of the South, with wind power dominating the Great Plains. The Northeast and Rust Belt are split between wind and gas. The West is mostly divided between solar and gas. Coal, which generates about twice as much climate pollution as natural gas when burned, is the cheapest option hardly anywhere.

The picture looks even better for solar power once the latest cost reductions are accounted for. If you adjust the interactive version of UT Austin's map to include a more up-to-date cost of solar panels, solar is suddenly the least expensive source of electricity across big new swaths of the West, Midwest and Northeast where wind or gas was previously cheaper.

Those findings are good news for efforts to slow human-caused climate change, which virtually all climate scientists agree is caused primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas. It doesn't mean fossil fuels are suddenly going to disappear, but it does mean that as utilities phase out older coal and gas plants, they're more likely than ever to choose wind or solar as a replacement.

"I think entities are coming around to the knowledge that 99 percent of your cost of solar and wind is getting your concrete and steel and silicon in the ground, and then you can lock in a price for the next 25 years," said Joshua Rhodes, a postdoctoral research fellow at UT Austin's Energy Institute and lead author of the paper that produced the cost maps.

Rhodes pointed to Georgetown, Texas — a small city north of Austin that will soon get 100 percent of its energy from sunlight and wind — as a sign that clean energy is increasingly bipartisan.

"It's about as red as it gets. It's Republican, it's not a place you think would be friendly to renewable energy," Rhodes said. "They did it completely based on economics."

Solar analysts expect the industry to grow more slowly in 2017 than it did last year, largely because Congress has now renewed the 30 percent solar investment tax credit. The tax credit was originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, which led many developers to rush projects to construction so they would come online by the end of that year, and qualify for the tax credit.

The Solar Foundation still projects 10 percent employment growth this year, based on its survey of solar companies. And there's not a lot the Trump administration and Republicans leaders in Congress can do to stop that growth, short of repealing the solar investment tax credit, which enjoyed bipartisan supported when it was renewed in 2015. Even if the federal government takes a more active role in promoting coal, oil and gas, falling costs and state-level policies like California's 50 percent clean energy mandate will continue to propel solar and wind forward, analysts say.

"The majority of what is supporting or constraining demand for solar is happening at the state or utility level," said Cory Honeyman, a solar analyst for GTM Research.

Quote
US Solar Market Grows 95% in 2016, Smashes Records

GTM Research and SEIA present data from the upcoming U.S. Solar Market Insight report.
by Mike Munsell 
February 15, 2017

In its biggest year to date, the United States solar market nearly doubled its annual record, topping out at 14,626 megawatts of solar PV installed in 2016.

This represents a 95 percent increase over the previous record of 7,493 megawatts installed in 2015. GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) previewed this data in advance of their upcoming U.S. Solar Market Insight report, set to be released on March 9.

For the first time ever, U.S. solar ranked as the No. 1 source of new electric generating capacity additions on an annual basis. In total, solar accounted for 39 percent of new capacity additions across all fuel types in 2016.

"What these numbers tell you is that the solar industry is a force to be reckoned with," said Abigail Ross Hopper, SEIA's president and CEO. "Solar's economically winning hand is generating strong growth across all market segments nationwide, leading to more than 260,000 Americans now employed in solar."

Success this year was driven largely by the utility-scale segment, which was bolstered by a pipeline of projects initially hedging against the extension of the federal Investment Tax Credit. Not only did it represent the most megawatts installed, but the utility-scale segment also featured the highest growth rate of any segment, growing 145 percent from 2015.

"In a banner year for U.S. solar, a record 22 states each added more than 100 megawatts," said Cory Honeyman, GTM Research's associate director of U.S. solar. "While U.S. solar grew across all segments, what stands out is the double-digit-gigawatt boom in utility-scale solar, primarily due to solar's cost-competitiveness with natural-gas alternatives."

The non-residential market also exceeded expectations, with two major growth drivers in the segment. The first is community solar, adding a record total of more than 200 megawatts, led by Minnesota and Massachusetts. Second, rate design and net energy metering fueled a rush in project development and installation growth across a number of major state markets, most notably in California. 

For the first time since 2011, non-residential installation growth surpassed residential solar growth, which posted a still-impressive 2,583 megawatts. While growth in California's residential market has begun to level out, strong growth in markets like Maryland, New Jersey and a handful of emerging states where solar has achieved grid parity, helped the residential segment to grow 19 percent year-over-year.

As a result of a remarkable 2016, the U.S. is now home to more than 1.3 million solar PV installations, with a cumulative capacity of over 40 gigawatts.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2017, 08:41:13 PM
That is a lot of jobs! :o

Quote

Tesla's Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass

Three new plants in California show how lithium-ion storage is ready to power the grid.

by Tom Randall

‎January‎ ‎30‎, ‎2017‎ ‎8‎:‎45‎ ‎PM 

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that's been used to help justify the company's $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

That changes this week.   

Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.

Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that's just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. "It's sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at," he said. "Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it."

A Fossil-Fuel Disaster

The new battery projects were commissioned in response to a fossil-fuel disaster—the natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon, near the Los Angeles neighborhood of Porter Ranch. It released thousands of tons of methane into the air before it was sealed last February.

In its wake, Southern California Edison (SCE) rushed to deploy energy storage deals to alleviate the risk of winter blackouts. There wasn't any time to waste: All of the projects rolling out this week were completed within 6 months, an unprecedented feat. Tesla moved particularly nimbly, completing in just three months a project that in the past would have taken years.

"There were teams working out there 24 hours a day, living in construction trailers and doing the commissioning work at two in the morning," Straubel said. "It feels like the kind of pace that we need to change the world."

A Question of Price

The battery storage industry—a key part of the plan if wind and solar power are to ever dominate the grid—is less than a decade old and still relatively small. Until recently, batteries were many times more expensive than natural gas "peaker" plants that fire up to meet surging demand in the evening and morning hours.

But prices for lithium-ion batteries have fallen fast—by almost half just since 2014. Electric cars are largely responsible, increasing demand and requiring a new scale of manufacturing for the same battery cells used in grid storage. California is mandating that its utilities begin testing batteries by adding more than 1.32 gigawatts by 2020. For context, consider this: In 2016, the global market for storage was less than a gigawatt.

California's goal is considerable, but it's dwarfed by Tesla's ambition to single-handedly deliver 15 gigawatt hours 1  of battery storage a year by the 2020s—enough to provide several nuclear power plants–worth of electricity to the grid during peak hours of demand. Not everyone, however, is that optimistic.

"I'm not convinced," said Yayoi Sekine, a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst who covers battery technology.  The market is "moving faster than ever, but it's not on the gigawatt scale yet."

Battery costs and profitability for utilities are difficult to evaluate. Companies are reluctant to give up their pricing data, and the expense is highly variable. Nevertheless, battery plants take up a much smaller footprint than gas-powered plants, they don't pollute, and their instant response can provide valuable services better than any other technology. In a small but increasing number of scenarios, batteries are already the most economical option.

But for the most part, according to a BNEF analysis, the costs of new projects would need to drop by half in order to be profitable on a wider scale in California, and that's not likely to happen for another decade. The total installed cost of a battery plant would need to fall to about $275 per kilowatt hour. While Tesla declined to provide its pricing data, the similarly sized Altagas project was expected to cost at least $40 million, or $500 per kilowatt hour. It's possible that with the remarkable scope of Tesla's Reno operations, the company will be able to establish new floors for pricing, forcing the industry to follow, BNEF's Sekine said.

It's still early days, even with this week's announcements. It will probably be a few years before Tesla's battery-storage sales are material enough to break out separately from automotive sales on quarterly filings, Straubel said.

The End of the Gas Peaker

But the battery's day is coming, while those of natural gas peaker plants are numbered. That's the prediction of John Zahurancik, AES's president of battery storage. Zahurancik is one of the pioneers of energy storage, having cobbled together profitable edge-case storage projects since 2008, when battery prices were 10 times higher than they are today.

AES has completed installation and is doing final testing of a 30 megawatt/120 megawatt hour plant that's even bigger than Tesla's 20 MW/80 MWh. AES is also working on a longer-term project that will be five times the size of Tesla's project when complete by 2021. 2

  That's a scale that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.

"This is my fifth time doing the largest project in the world for energy storage, and each time people tell me, 'well this is the test, this is really the test'" Zahurancik said in an interview Friday. "The next big test is how do we scale this up broadly."

The biggest thing that sets Tesla and AES apart is that Tesla is building the components of its storage units itself at the company's Gigafactory in Reno, including battery cells with partner Panasonic, modules, and inverters. Tesla says this vertical integration will help reduce costs and make a seamless system. AES says that dealing with a diverse supply chain allows it to seek the cheapest price and the best technology on the market. It's the same debate going on in the electric-car business, where Tesla is manufacturing an unprecedented percentage of its own parts in-house.

For now, gas peaker plants still win out on price for projects that aren't constrained by space, emissions, or urgency, said Ron Nichols, President of SCE, the California utility responsible for most of the biggest battery storage contracts. 3    But that may change in the next five years, he said.

"Long term, will large amounts of batteries be able to take over?" Nichols asked. "We'll need to get some hours under our belts to know for sure."

—With assistance from Dana Hull

Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2017, 09:47:36 PM
Shut up, Meg.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2017, 10:00:25 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2017, 09:47:36 PM
Shut up, Meg.

How about you take being wrong like a man and just admit it?

Quote
Renewable energy sources made up nearly nine-tenths of new power added to Europe's electricity grids last year, in a sign of the continent's rapid shift away from fossil fuels.

But industry leaders said they were worried about the lack of political support beyond 2020, when binding EU renewable energy targets end.

Of the 24.5GW of new capacity built across the EU in 2016, 21.1GW – or 86% – was from wind, solar, biomass and hydro, eclipsing the previous high-water mark of 79% in 2014.

QuoteChina's installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity more than doubled last year, turning the country into the world's biggest producer of solar energy by capacity, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said on Saturday.

Installed PV capacity rose to 77.42 gigawatts at the end of 2016, with the addition of 34.54 gigawatts over the course of the year, data from the energy agency showed.

QuoteIndia just made a huge commitment to solar power. They're doubling the planned capacity in their solar parks program from 20 gigawatts (GW) up to 40 GW. The government has also given a green light to the program's second phase.

QuoteStarting this year, Saudi Arabia plans to develop almost 10 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2023, starting with wind and solar plants in its vast northwestern desert. The effort could replace the equivalent of 80,000 barrels of oil a day now burned for power. Add in natural gas projects set to start later this decade, and the Saudis could quadruple that number, according to consultant Wood MacKenzie Ltd. That could supplant all the crude burned in the kingdom during its winter months.

QuoteChina Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity

China is canceling plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants, seeking to rein in runaway, wasteful investment in the sector while moving the country away from one of the dirtiest forms of electricity generation, the government announced in a directive made public this week.

The announcement, made by China's National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. That includes dozens of projects in 13 provinces, mostly in China's coal-rich north and west, on which construction had already begun. Those projects alone would have had a combined output of 54 gigawatts, more than the entire coal-fired capacity of Germany, according to figures compiled by Greenpeace.

The cancellations make it likelier that China will meet its goal of limiting its total coal-fired power generation capacity to 1,100 gigawatts by 2020. That huge figure, three times the total coal-fired capacity in the United States, is far more than China needs. Its coal plants now run at about half of capacity, and new sources of power, like wind, solar and nuclear, are coming online at a fast clip.

Nevertheless, China's capacity would have surged well past the 1,100-gigawatt mark by 2020 had it not begun canceling coal-fired plants in the works. The new announcements are in addition to cancellations detailed last year.

"The key thing is that yes, China has a long way to go, but in the past few years China has come a very long way," said Lauri Myllyvirta, a researcher for Greenpeace in Beijing.

Electricity generated from coal is the biggest source of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, and pollution from such plants contributes to the miasma of smog that has blanketed much of China this winter. But despite the vast amount of capacity added in recent years, China's coal use has been on the decline since 2013.

Still, China's state-owned power companies remain politically powerful. Grid operators often favor power generated from coal plants over that made by wind and solar, and despite the cuts, China is still building far more capacity than it needs.

In contrast, utilities in the United States have only four coal-fired plants set to go online through 2020, with a combined capacity of less than 1 gigawatt, according to the Energy Information Administration. The United States retired more than 13 gigawatts of coal capacity in 2015 as the country shifted toward natural gas, wind and solar.

Despite the government announcement, it is far from clear that the Chinese jurisdictions most affected by the directive, including Inner Mongolia, Shanxi and Xinjiang, will actually take the politically costly move of halting construction, laying off workers and canceling contracts, said Lin Boqiang, director of the China Institute for Studies in Energy Policy at Xiamen University in southeastern China.

"Some projects might have been ongoing for 10 years, and now there's an order to stop them," he said by telephone. "It's difficult to persuade the local governments to give up on them."

But Mr. Lin and Mr. Myllyvirta said one factor that made the directive likelier to succeed was its specificity. It names each project set for cancellation, putting provincial and other local officials on the spot and making it harder to continue the projects.

Quote
Tesla's solar roof to cost less than a regular roof – even before energy production, says Elon Musk
Fred Lambert - Nov. 17th 2016 4:59 pm ET

Elon Musk made quite the announcement today. During the special shareholders meeting to approve the merger with SolarCity, which they approved by 85%, he said that he was coming back from a meeting with the SolarCity engineering team about the solar roof and that he now feels confident that they could deliver the product at a lower cost than a regular roof – even before energy production.

That's different from what the company was claiming before the meeting today.


And it's an incredibly bold claim since if it turns out to be true, no homeowner would have any reason not to choose a solar roof when buying a new roof.

Since unveiling the new products a few weeks ago, Musk and Tesla officials have been referring to the solar roof's price as "less than the price of a regular roof when accounting for energy generation" – meaning that it will cost less than a regular roof when you account for your savings on your electricity bills.

It made sense. Solar energy is already competitive in several markets and while the price of the solar roof could be more expensive than a regular roof as an upfront investment, those electricity savings would quickly add up and made the product competitive with normal roofing solutions.

But now claiming that it would cost even less than a regular roof upfront is a completely different game.

Musk said during the meeting earlier this afternoon:

"It's looking quite promising that a solar roof actually cost less than normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account. So the basic proposition would be 'Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, last twice as long, cost less and by the way generates electricity' why would you get anything else."

That's including the labor costs and without subsidies for solar, Musk added.

The CEO claimed that it is achievable because the current roofing supply chain is "incredibly inefficient" – emphasizing that no one looked at the roofing supply chain for a while. He also echoed some comments made recently by Tesla CTO JB Straubel about the cost of products being linked to their weight when produced in volume.

He said that the glass developed by Tesla for the solar roof tiles weigh "a third, a quarter and sometimes even a fifth" of other current concrete and ceramic roof solutions. Musk calculated that because of the weight and fragility of the current products, logistic costs and breakage are important parts of the total cost.

Musk added that there are "huge gains" to be made by "cleaning up" that supply chain. While it remains to be proven, it has the potential to significantly accelerate the deployment of solar capacity by opening the market to homes that need to have a new roof, which is 5 million homes every year in the US alone.

The end price to the customer will obviously vary depending on the price of the house and the difficulty of the installation.

Tesla expects to start producing the solar roof in volume starting next year. The company unveiled 4 different versions of the product and it plans to release them one or two at a time starting in 2017.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 08:49:24 AM
He said that the glass developed by Tesla for the solar roof tiles weigh "a third, a quarter and sometimes even a fifth" of other current concrete and ceramic roof solutions. Musk calculated that because of the weight and fragility of the current products, logistic costs and breakage are important parts of the total cost.

Quote from: viper37 on February 20, 2017, 10:58:42 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 08:49:24 AM
He said that the glass developed by Tesla for the solar roof tiles weigh "a third, a quarter and sometimes even a fifth" of other current concrete and ceramic roof solutions. Musk calculated that because of the weight and fragility of the current products, logistic costs and breakage are important parts of the total cost.

I want to see how it does against conventional asphalt roofing products.  Ceramic and concrete aren't always a viable option in northern climates.

QuoteFlorida Power & Light Co., the largest generator of solar energy in Florida, today announced the expansion of its near-term plans for new universal solar generation.

FPL now plans to build new universal solar power plants at eight locations by early 2018 — comprising more than 2.5 million solar panels.

"We have been working hard to drive down the costs of adding solar so we can deliver even more zero-emissions energy to all of our customers. As the first company to build solar power generation cost effectively in Florida, we are proud to continue leading the advancement of affordable clean energy infrastructure. We have proven that it's possible to cut emissions and deliver reliable service while keeping electric bills low for our customers," said Eric Silagy, FPL president and CEO, during a celebration at the FPL Manatee Solar Energy Center, one of the company's three most recently completed solar power plants.

FPL consistently ranks as one of the cleanest, most reliable energy providers in the nation, and the price that FPL's typical 1,000-kWh residential customer pays for electricity continues to be less than it was more than 10 years ago and well below the latest national average. Furthering this trend, the new solar energy centers FPL plans to build are projected to be cost-effective over their operational lifetime, producing millions of dollars in long-term net savings for FPL customers.

Each of the eight new solar plants will be 74.5 megawatts in capacity for a total of nearly 600 megawatts, which is enough to power approximately 120,000 homes. The plants will be located at sites across Florida, including three previously announced locations in Alachua, Putnam and DeSoto counties. The locations of all of the new sites will be announced in the coming weeks.

Construction is expected to commence this spring. During peak construction, an estimated 200 to 250 people will be working at each site.

FPL announced its accelerated solar plans at a community event held today with hundreds of students and leaders from across the state who gathered to celebrate the company's latest completed solar power plants – FPL Manatee Solar Energy Center, FPL Citrus Solar Energy Center and FPL Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center, all of which began powering FPL customers on Dec. 31, 2016.

"A year ago, I stood here as FPL broke ground on this solar site, marking the start of the installation of one million solar panels that are now producing zero-emissions energy," said Eric Draper, executive director of Audubon Florida, at the celebration today. "An additional eight new solar energy centers is a major step toward reducing carbon emissions and saving water, benefitting the earth and all Floridians."

Building on FPL's long-standing commitment to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education, the celebration event also included a solar-powered competition co-sponsored by the Florida Solar Energy Center. Nearly 50 teams of students in grades 4 through 12 from schools across the state participated in the competition, building solar ovens, solar race cars and other innovative projects.

FPL's approach to investing in affordable clean energy infrastructure since 2001, which includes adding advanced technologies and phasing out older coal-fired and oil-burning power plants, has saved FPL customers more than $8.6 billion in fossil fuel costs and prevented 108 million tons of carbon emissions.

Today, FPL is cleaner than the carbon emissions goal set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan for Florida to meet by 2030, while the company's typical residential customer bills are among the lowest in the nation.

FPL currently operates more than 335 megawatts of solar generating capacity, enough to power 60,000 homes. Major installations include:

·      FPL DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, DeSoto County
·      FPL Space Coast Next Generation Solar Energy Center, Brevard County
·      FPL Martin Clean Energy Center (hybrid solar/natural gas), Martin County
·      FPL Solar Circuit at Daytona International Speedway, Volusia County
·      Solar research installation at Florida International University, Miami-Dade County
·      FPL SolarNow array at the Broward Young At Art Museum & Library, Broward County
·      FPL SolarNow array at the Palm Beach Zoo & Conservation Society, Palm Beach County
·      FPL SolarNow array at the Palmetto Estuary Nature Preserve, Manatee County
·      FPL Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center, Charlotte County
·      FPL Citrus Solar Energy Center, DeSoto County
·      FPL Manatee Solar Energy Center, Manatee County

Quote
California Senate leader's new bill: 100% clean energy
Sammy Roth  , The Desert Sun 5:33 p.m. PT Feb. 20, 2017

Kevin de León has promised to lead the resistance to President Trump. A new bill could make good on that promise.

The California Senate leader has introduced legislation that would require the Golden State to get 100 percent of its electricity from climate-friendly energy sources by 2045. That's a big step up from the state's current renewable energy mandate, 50 percent by 2030 — a target that's only been on the books for a year and a half, and that California is still a long way from meeting.

Under Gov. Jerry Brown, California has become a world leader in efforts to limit global warming, which is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. De León's 100 percent clean energy proposal would up the ante considerably — and fly in the face of Donald Trump's agenda. The president has repeatedly called human-caused global warming a "hoax," despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it's real and dangerous, and has pledged to boost America's production of climate-polluting coal, oil and natural gas, which he says will create millions of high-paying jobs.

De León's bill would require California to hit 50 percent renewable energy by 2025, five years sooner than under current law, and phase out fossil fuels entirely by 2045. It's not yet clear whether the Senate leader will move forward the proposal, which he introduced before the state's bill-filing deadline on Friday, almost certainly to serve as a placeholder for more detailed legislation that could be fleshed out later.

Still, clean energy advocates celebrated the proposal. De León's legislation reflects the Golden State's "moral imperative" to slash climate pollution, said Jim Woodruff, president of the Large-scale Solar Association, a Sacramento trade group that has worked with de León on the bill.

"Whether it's a direct response to what's happening in Washington, I don't know, but it's certainly an indication that California will continue to lead in this area," said Woodruff, who is also an executive at First Solar, which has built several large solar farms in the desert Southwest. "It's the sixth-largest economy in the world. I think by putting these goals out, it's making a pretty powerful statement, not only in the U.S., but globally, that if we set out the goals and put the resources to it, those goals can be achieved."

So far only one U.S. state, Hawaii, has a law requiring 100 percent renewable energy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii has also set a deadline of 2045.

A spokesperson for de León declined to make the senator available for an interview. But the Los Angeles Democrat has worked closely with Brown to pass other landmark climate bills, writing the 2015 law that established the 50 percent clean energy mandate. And he's made it clear he's eager to push back against the Trump administration on immigration, energy and other issues.

"California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future," de León and state Assembly leader Anthony Rendon said in a joint statement the day after Trump's election in November.

Experts say Trump's energy plan is unrealistic, and not just because it ignores the need to reduce emissions of climate-altering greenhouse gases. Trump and congressional Republicans have said they will revive the shrinking coal industry by repealing former President Barack Obama's environmental regulations, but the reality is that market forces — especially the rise of cheap natural gas, made available by the drilling technique known as fracking — have been a major cause of coal's decline. Unless Trump can limit natural gas production, coal will continue to hurt, experts say.

Meanwhile, California's plans to scale up renewable energy look increasingly realistic. The Golden State got 27 percent of its electricity from solar, wind and other clean sources in 2016, according to the California Energy Commission. The state's sprawling deserts have been an epicenter of renewable energy growth, with several huge solar farms opening in eastern Riverside County, near the Coachella Valley. The solar industry has become an economic force here, creating 100,000 jobs in California and 260,000 jobs nationally by late 2016, according to an industry-backed nonprofit.

QuoteEnergy jobs by sector: Solar beating coal, gas
The solar industry ranks second in total employment among energy industries, according to a January 2017 report from the federal Department of Energy. (Note: For the purposes of its report, the Department of Energy defined workers in each of these industries as people who spend "some portion" of their time supporting that industry. That's why its employment figure for solar, 373,807, is higher than the Solar Foundation's jobs number of 260,077. The Solar Foundation only counts workers who spend at least 50 percent of their time on solar-related work.)

Getting to 100 percent renewable energy may not be simple, but experts say it can be done without significant increases to electricity rates, a concern often raised by fossil fuel supporters.

"Technically and economically, it's pretty straightforward," said Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University engineering professor who has studied the costs and benefits of phasing out fossil fuels.

The falling costs of wind and solar power are the main reason for that. Last year, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin found that wind turbines and big solar farms are already the cheapest sources of new electricity generation across much of the country — and they're still getting cheaper. In California, solar is the least expensive option for much of the state.

"The prices for renewables have come down farther and faster than anyone thought was possible," said Sonia Aggarwal, vice president of Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based policy research group that supports clean energy development.

Increased reliance on solar and wind farms is expected to create new challenges for California, since they only generate electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. That's already becoming a problem during the middle of the day, when solar farms sometimes generate more electricity than people can use, and in the evening, when solar farms go offline just as people get home from work.

But experts who have studied the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy say California already has most of the tools it needs to solve those problems.

Those tools could include smarter energy management, such as encouraging homes and businesses to shift their electricity use to times of day when solar panels and wind turbines are active. Some of those shifts could be automated. For instance, Aggarwal said California's 3.5 million commercial and multi-family buildings could install pre-heating and pre-cooling technology, which could be programmed to power up when electricity from solar or wind farms floods the grid. Energy prices that vary throughout the day could encourage those buildings to use electricity when the time is right.

"We like to say there are already 3.5 million batteries installed in California," Aggarwal said.

QuoteRenewable energy is booming
The United States generated 13 percent of its electricity from renewable sources in 2015, up from 8 percent in 2001, according to the Energy Information Administration. Those numbers include conventional hydroelectric power. Here's a breakdown showing how generation from four key renewable energy sources — wind, utility-scale solar, geothermal and biomass — has grown over the last 15 years. (Note: This data doesn't include electricity from rooftop solar panels, which the Energy Information Administration only started tracking recently.)

Other tools for getting to 100 percent could include new twists on old technologies, like hydropower plants that are operated so as to complement wind and solar generation, and solar plants that use molten salt or other fluids to store energy for use when the sun goes down. (One such facility, the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes solar tower, is already operating in Nevada.) California could also incentivize the development of more geothermal plants in the Imperial Valley, which are expensive to build but can generate climate-friendly electricity 24 hours a day.

Then there's Gov. Brown's controversial plan to link California's electric grid with other western states, which could make it easier for utilities here to import cheap wind energy from Wyoming and New Mexico. The plan has divided environmentalists, with supporters saying it's needed to help the state meet its renewable energy goals and detractors saying it might backfire, allowing politically conservative states like Utah and Wyoming to export their coal power to California. Whether or not Brown's grid plan comes to fruition, California is likely to get a big influx of wind from Wyoming.

It's unclear how big a role batteries will play in storing solar and wind power for later use, both for homes and for utilities. Right now batteries are still too expensive for widespread use, and experts say California can get to 100 percent without major battery breakthroughs. But if batteries follow the solar industry's cost curve, they could make the transition to clean energy even cheaper.

Jacobson, the Stanford professor, has organized some of his research into the Solutions Project, which provides a state-by-state road map for abandoning fossil fuels and outlines the costs and benefits to each state. For California, he found that transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy would actually lower the cost of electricity, saving the average Californian $161 per year by 2050.

If the cost savings from reducing climate change and hazardous air pollution — most importantly lower healthcare costs — are also taken into account, California would save an average of $7,395 per person by 2050, Jacobson found. About 12,500 fewer people would die each year as a result of air pollution.

"It's a no-brainer," Jacobson said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2017, 09:32:35 PM
These bills that set goals for the year 2525 are PR stunts.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 09:35:52 PM
California is currently at 27%. They want to get to 50% by 2025. That's well within reach given that Solar and Wind are already the cheapest options in California.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2017, 09:32:35 PM
These bills that set goals for the year 2525 are PR stunts.

Quote from: grumbler on February 20, 2017, 09:39:07 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2017, 09:32:35 PM
These bills that set goals for the year 2525 are PR stunts.

Not if man is still alive.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2017, 09:38:40 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 09:35:52 PM
California is currently at 27%. They want to get to 50% by 2025. That's well within reach given that Solar and Wind are already the cheapest options in California.

Kevin de Leon wants California to get to 100% by 2045 some PR.

QuoteGetting to 100 percent renewable energy may not be simple, but experts say it can be done without significant increases to electricity rates, a concern often raised by fossil fuel supporters.

"Technically and economically, it's pretty straightforward," said Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University engineering professor who has studied the costs and benefits of phasing out fossil fuels.

The falling costs of wind and solar power are the main reason for that. Last year, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin found that wind turbines and big solar farms are already the cheapest sources of new electricity generation across much of the country — and they're still getting cheaper. In California, solar is the least expensive option for much of the state.

"The prices for renewables have come down farther and faster than anyone thought was possible," said Sonia Aggarwal, vice president of Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based policy research group that supports clean energy development.

Increased reliance on solar and wind farms is expected to create new challenges for California, since they only generate electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows. That's already becoming a problem during the middle of the day, when solar farms sometimes generate more electricity than people can use, and in the evening, when solar farms go offline just as people get home from work.

But experts who have studied the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy say California already has most of the tools it needs to solve those problems.

Those tools could include smarter energy management, such as encouraging homes and businesses to shift their electricity use to times of day when solar panels and wind turbines are active. Some of those shifts could be automated. For instance, Aggarwal said California's 3.5 million commercial and multi-family buildings could install pre-heating and pre-cooling technology, which could be programmed to power up when electricity from solar or wind farms floods the grid. Energy prices that vary throughout the day could encourage those buildings to use electricity when the time is right.

Other tools for getting to 100 percent could include new twists on old technologies, like hydropower plants that are operated so as to complement wind and solar generation, and solar plants that use molten salt or other fluids to store energy for use when the sun goes down. (One such facility, the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes solar tower, is already operating in Nevada.) California could also incentivize the development of more geothermal plants in the Imperial Valley, which are expensive to build but can generate climate-friendly electricity 24 hours a day.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 09:51:56 PM
When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 09:51:56 PM
When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

The article goes into some depth on how this can be accomplished. Are you just going to dismiss this?

Quote
Electric cars are set to arrive far more speedily than anticipated

Carmakers face short-term pain and long term gain

THE high-pitched whirr of an electric car may not stir the soul like the bellow and growl of an internal combustion engine (ICE). But to compensate, electric motors give even the humblest cars explosive acceleration. Electric cars are similarly set for rapid forward thrust. Improving technology and tightening regulations on emissions from ICEs is about to propel electric vehicles (EVs) from a niche to the mainstream. After more than a century of reliance on fossil fuels, however, the route from petrol power to volts will be a tough one for carmakers to navigate.

The change of gear is recent. One car in a hundred sold today is powered by electricity. The proportion of EVs on the world's roads is still well below 1%. Most forecasters had reckoned that by 2025 that would rise to around 4%. Those estimates are undergoing a big overhaul as carmakers announce huge expansions in their production of EVs. Morgan Stanley, a bank, now says that by 2025 EV sales will hit 7m a year and make up 7% of vehicles on the road. Exane BNP Paribas, another bank, reckons that it could be more like 11% (see chart). But as carmakers plan for ever more battery power, even these figures could quickly seem too low.

Ford's boss is bolder still. In January Mark Fields announced that the "era of the electric vehicle is dawning", and he reckons that the number of models of EVs will exceed pure ICE-powered cars within 15 years. Ford has promised 13 new electrified cars in the next five years. Others are making bigger commitments. Volkswagen, the world's biggest carmaker, said last year that it would begin a product blitz in 2020 and launch 30 new battery-powered models by 2025, when EVs will account for up to a quarter of its sales. Daimler, a German rival, also recently set an ambitious target of up to a fifth of sales by the same date.

The surge has two explanations: the rising cost of complying with emissions regulations and the falling cost of batteries. Pure EVs, which send no carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere, and hybrids, which produce far less than conventional engines, are a way to meet Europe's emissions targets—albeit an expensive one. But the gains from cheaper methods such as turbocharging smaller engines, stop-start technology and weight reductions will no longer be enough, since a tougher testing regime, to be introduced in the wake of VW's diesel-cheating scandal, will make those targets still harder to reach.

The hefty cost of preventing nitrogen oxide spewing from diesel engines, which emit far less carbon dioxide than the petrol equivalent, may see them disappear by 2025. Further development of ICEs could be enough to meet the 2021 targets. Carmakers also need to be prepared to hit the next ones, says Andrew Bergbaum of AlixPartners, a consulting firm. These, yet to be finalised in the EU for carbon dioxide, may be as low as 68g/km by 2025 compared with 130g/km today.

Regulations are favourable outside Europe, too. In China more than 400,000 pure EVs were sold last year, making it the world's biggest market. The government, keen to clear the air of choking exhaust fumes, has plans for a quota that could insist that 8% of sales are EVs or hybrids by 2018. And even if Donald Trump relaxes American emissions standards, this will not hold back electrification. California, which accounts for one in eight cars sold in America, is allowed to set tougher environmental standards than the national ones. It, and seven of the other states that have adopted its emissions rules, have a target of 3.3m EVs on their roads by 2025.

Moving right along

Technology will have as much impact as politics. Vehicles that carmakers are forced to produce for the sake of the environment will become ones that buyers want for the sake of their wallets. EVs were once generally a second car for richer, environmentally minded drivers, prepared to pay a big premium for a vehicle with a battery that took an age to charge and had a limited range.

The falling cost of batteries will make the cost of owning and running an EV the same as that of a traditionally powered car in Europe by the early 2020s, even without the hefty government subsidies that many rich countries use to sweeten the deal (see article). Better batteries should also conquer "range anxiety"—most pure EVs now run out of juice after around 100 miles (161km). If battery costs continue to tumble and performance improves at the current rate, the price of a car with a range of 300 miles could hit $30,000 by the early 2020s, according to Exane BNP Paribas. Slicker technology will also mean charging in minutes, not hours.

The lack of charging infrastructure still deters buyers, but signs of growth are encouraging. In most rich countries governments, carmakers and private companies are putting up the necessary cash. In America the number of charging points grew by more than a quarter to almost 40,000 in 2016. Even Shell and Total, are planning to put chargers on the forecourts of their petrol stations across Europe.

But EVs are not yet a profitable business for carmakers precisely because of their batteries. Chevrolet's Bolt, on sale late last year, costs under $30,000 with subsidies and travels 238 miles between charges. But each sale will reportedly set General Motors back $9,000. Tesla's rival, the Model 3, is set to go on sale later this year; the firm has yet to make an annual profit. Even Renault-Nissan, the world's biggest EV manufacturer, loses money on electric models.

Research and development also costs a fortune. Daimler says it will spend €10bn by 2025 on just ten battery-powered models. Restructuring is also expensive. For a century carmakers have built factories, employed workers and developed a supply chain around the ICE. In one scenario Morgan Stanley reckons that VW's entire car business could make a loss between 2025 and 2028 as it transforms itself.

Some carmakers are better placed than others for the transition. Profitable premium brands such as Daimler and BMW have the resources to invest and can be confident that their richer customers will be the first to switch to more expensive EVs. Mass-market carmakers have a trickier task, according to Patrick Hummel of UBS, a bank. Despite falling costs, a cheap EV for the mass market is still a distance away. The likes of Fiat Chrysler (whose chairman, John Elkann, sits on the board of The Economist's parent company) or PSA Group, which makes Peugeots and Citroëns, have barely begun changing. But these carmakers, already operating with wafer-thin profit margins, must still invest heavily in anticipation of that moment.

EVs may eventually make more money than ICE cars as battery costs fall further. They are competitive in other ways too: EVs are simpler mechanically, and require less equipment and fewer workers to assemble them. But carmakers first face a transition that will hit cashflow and profits. Getting ready for an electric race will be painful, but missing it altogether would be disastrous.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2017, 11:33:57 PM
There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:08:25 AM
That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 25, 2017, 03:17:06 AM

Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:08:25 AM
That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Music?  :huh:

Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 25, 2017, 05:03:12 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 25, 2017, 03:17:06 AM

Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:08:25 AM
That would revolutionize train travel and/or music.

Music?  :huh:

Super conductors.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2017, 02:25:07 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2017, 11:33:57 PM
There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

You're implying a relationship between proposed bill and new capacity construction which is not warranted given the information contained in the article.

Quote from: dps on February 25, 2017, 01:03:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2017, 02:25:07 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2017, 11:33:57 PM
There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

You're implying a relationship between proposed bill and new capacity construction which is not warranted given the information contained in the article.

Don't think he is.  He's just saying that unless other significant action is taken right away to do something to implement the goals set out in the bill, then the bill is indeed just PR.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2017, 10:11:11 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 20, 2017, 09:51:56 PM
When I hear "X just wants PR" I hear "it's just talk and won't happen." Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is if it happens, it won't be because of this bill.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:11:18 AM

Quote from: dps on February 25, 2017, 01:03:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2017, 02:25:07 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 20, 2017, 11:33:57 PM
There's an interim goal for 2025, which is less than 8 years off - very quick if you consider lead times to construct power generation and distribution facilities.  That would require very immediate significant action to meet.  2045 is not that far off either.  Power purchase agreements often contemplate 20 year terms, following a planning and construct time of several years.

You're implying a relationship between proposed bill and new capacity construction which is not warranted given the information contained in the article.

Don't think he is.  He's just saying that unless other significant action is taken right away to do something to implement the goals set out in the bill, then the bill is indeed just PR.

So long as we ignore the meaning of "PR," that might indeed be said.  I'd argue that the contention that "the bill is indeed just PR" is true only so long as that is it's intent.  If there is intent, even frustrated intent, to meet the goal, then it is not "just PR."

Quote from: dps on February 26, 2017, 10:35:56 AM
Let's put it this way, then:  if they pass a bill setting a goal, but take no action to do anything to implement polices to reach that goal, then passing the bill might have well just been a PR move, no matter how sincerely they would like to meet the goal.

QuoteLithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries

Feb. 28, 2017

AUSTIN, Texas — A team of engineers led by 94-year-old John Goodenough, professor in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin and co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, has developed the first all-solid-state battery cells that could lead to safer, faster-charging, longer-lasting rechargeable batteries for handheld mobile devices, electric cars and stationary energy storage.

Goodenough's latest breakthrough, completed with Cockrell School senior research fellow Maria Helena Braga, is a low-cost all-solid-state battery that is noncombustible and has a long cycle life (battery life) with a high volumetric energy density and fast rates of charge and discharge. The engineers describe their new technology in a recent paper published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

"Cost, safety, energy density, rates of charge and discharge and cycle life are critical for battery-driven cars to be more widely adopted. We believe our discovery solves many of the problems that are inherent in today's batteries," Goodenough said.

The researchers demonstrated that their new battery cells have at least three times as much energy density as today's lithium-ion batteries. A battery cell's energy density gives an electric vehicle its driving range, so a higher energy density means that a car can drive more miles between charges. The UT Austin battery formulation also allows for a greater number of charging and discharging cycles, which equates to longer-lasting batteries, as well as a faster rate of recharge (minutes rather than hours).

Today's lithium-ion batteries use liquid electrolytes to transport the lithium ions between the anode (the negative side of the battery) and the cathode (the positive side of the battery). If a battery cell is charged too quickly, it can cause dendrites or "metal whiskers" to form and cross through the liquid electrolytes, causing a short circuit that can lead to explosions and fires. Instead of liquid electrolytes, the researchers rely on glass electrolytes that enable the use of an alkali-metal anode without the formation of dendrites.

The use of an alkali-metal anode (lithium, sodium or potassium) — which isn't possible with conventional batteries — increases the energy density of a cathode and delivers a long cycle life. In experiments, the researchers' cells have demonstrated more than 1,200 cycles with low cell resistance.

Additionally, because the solid-glass electrolytes can operate, or have high conductivity, at -20 degrees Celsius, this type of battery in a car could perform well in subzero degree weather. This is the first all-solid-state battery cell that can operate under 60 degree Celsius.

Braga began developing solid-glass electrolytes with colleagues while she was at the University of Porto in Portugal. About two years ago, she began collaborating with Goodenough and researcher Andrew J. Murchison at UT Austin. Braga said that Goodenough brought an understanding of the composition and properties of the solid-glass electrolytes that resulted in a new version of the electrolytes that is now patented through the UT Austin Office of Technology Commercialization.

The engineers' glass electrolytes allow them to plate and strip alkali metals on both the cathode and the anode side without dendrites, which simplifies battery cell fabrication.

Another advantage is that the battery cells can be made from earth-friendly materials.

"The glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely available," Braga said.

Goodenough and Braga are continuing to advance their battery-related research and are working on several patents. In the short term, they hope to work with battery makers to develop and test their new materials in electric vehicles and energy storage devices.

This research is supported by UT Austin, but there are no grants associated with this work. The UT Austin Office of Technology Commercialization is actively negotiating license agreements with multiple companies engaged in a variety of battery-related industry segments.

Quote

Researchers Develop Technology for Affordable Solar Windows

Dawn Allcot

22 February 2017

Solar energy provider SolarCity has already developed aesthetically pleasing solar roof tiles. But the next step in solar could be even more seamless and efficient: Solar windows.

Windows have long been the primary tool of passive solar applications, harnessing the power of the sun for natural light and warmth during the day. Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota and University of Milano-Bicocca have developed technology that could transform ordinary looking windows into active solar arrays. The windows use high-tech silicon nanoparticles embedded in the glass as efficient luminescent solar concentrators (LSCs), which collect the useful frequencies of light. Photovoltaic cells hidden in the window frame then convert that light into useful energy to power homes and businesses.

The Next Frontier in Renewable Energy Technology

These photovoltaic windows can increase a building's capacity for energy generation, expanding solar capabilities beyond the rooftop in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Passsersby will see no difference between PV windows and regular windows.

Silicon Particles Make Solar PV Windows Affordable, Environmentally Safe

Prior research to integrate solar concentrators and solar cells into building design used complex nanostructures based on cadmium, lead, or indium. The prior two are potentially toxic, while the latter is rare and expensive. Silicon, on the other hand, is abundant, affordable, and non-toxic.

How It Works

"At this size, silicon's properties change and it becomes an efficient light emitter, with the important property not to re-absorb its own luminescence. This is the key feature that makes silicon nanoparticles ideally suited for LSC applications," said University of Minnesota mechanical engineering professor Uwe Kortshagen, in an article on the University of Minnesota website. He is the inventor of the process for creating silicon nanoparticles and one of the senior authors of the study.

The silicon nanoparticles are produced in a high-tech process using a plasma reactor and formed into a powder.

"The powder is turned into an ink-like solution and then embedded into a polymer, either forming a sheet of flexible plastic material or coating a surface with a thin film," Samantha Ehrenberg, a University of Minnesota mechanical Ph.D. student and another first author of the study.

Funding for the research study includes a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Basic Science Center for Advanced Solar Photophysics, an Energy Frontier Research Center and a grant from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme. Ehrenberg also received funding from a National Science Foundation (NSF) Fellowship and the Benjamin Y.H. and Helen Liu Fellowship.

The research is published today in Nature Photonics, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Nature Publishing Group.

QuoteThe country has outlined an ambitious National Renewable Energy Program that seeks to install about 22,000 megawatts (MW) of clean energy by 2030. Nearly 10,000MW of that total would be exported.

Quote from: Archy on March 07, 2017, 06:14:20 AM
With the solar energy don't we have in Europe the problem that we can get dependent on the solar energy from North-Africa, Middle East since in the desserts there's always sun. So just replacing oil with solar energy.

QuoteTesla battery packs power the Hawaiian island of Kauai after dark

Phil LeBeau   | @Lebeaucarnews
8 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

While investors on Wall Street debate whether Tesla's ambitious transformation from electric car maker to sustainable energy company will pay off, its industrial power packs are already having an impact on at least one state.

In Hawaii, the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) is now drawing energy from 272 Tesla power packs to provide electricity after dark. While the island previously relied on solar and other renewable energy during the day, it had no way to store the sun's power after it went down.

Using stored energy from Tesla's power packs is expected to save KIUC 1.6 million gallons of diesel fuel annually, which has traditionally been the way the utility generates power after dark.

Tesla says the power packs will cut KIUC costs per kilowatt hour from 15.5 cents down to 13.9 cents. The 13.9 cents is a fixed price for the next 20 years.

For Kauai, the chance to cut the use and fluctuating costs of diesel fuel is what makes Tesla's energy storage system so attractive. Yet for Wall Street analysts, it isn't enough to convince them that the Tesla's energy initiatives will be enough to move the needle.

"At this time, we ascribe zero value to Tesla shares from this business," Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas told investors. "We take this view due to the uncertain economic and regulatory forces facing the energy business, particularly the solar business."

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Tesla Chief Technical Officer JB Straubel attributed analyst skepticism to the fact that solar and energy storage form a new market.

"I think it is a little difficult to see into the future sometimes and see how it is going to grow," Straubel told CNBC. "There are no immediate comparables that they can look to in the past and show how this growth happened."

But, he added, "the size of the utility grid and the electricity consumed around the world is enormous. That is the market that we are tapping into here."

Straubel also expects the economics of renewable energy to become increasingly favorable over those of fossil fuels.

"The energy markets are obviously volatile," he said. "They will continue to be volatile, and these technologies are coming down in price every single year. So we don't see this changing and the long-term trend is going to be the same."

Shareholders approved a merger between Tesla and SolarCity in November, with Tesla scooping up Elon Musk's solar energy firm for $2.6 billion. But while the company's revenue has grown rapidly over the years, high costs have kept it from earning a profit in all but two quarters.

SolarCity plays a major role in the company's Kauai project. There are nearly 55,000 solar panels spread over 50 acres generating electricity that is stored in the power packs and discharged to KIUC after the sun goes down.

"As a state, we know how to generate power," Hawaii Gov. David Ige told CNBC. "For us, the challenge has been storing that power to use at night. Now we can do that."

Quote
India crosses 10GW solar power milestone today

NEW DELHI, MAR 10, 2017, (PTI)
DeccanHerald

India's solar power generation capacity has touched 10,000 MW mark today, registering a three time increase in less than three years.

"Bright Future: India has crossed 10,000 MW of Solar power capacity today. More than 3 times increase in less than 3 years," Power, Coal, Mines, New & Renewable Energy Minister Piyush Goyal tweeted.

India solar power generation capacity stood at 2,650 MW on May 26, 2014. India has set an ambitious target of adding 100 GW of solar power generation capacity and 175 GW of overall renewable energy capacity by 2022.

Earlier last month, the lower capital expenditure and cheaper credit had pulled down solar tariff to a new low of Rs 2.97 per unit in an auction conducted for 750 MW capacity in Rewa Solar Park in Madhya Pradesh.

The auction was conducted by a joint venture of Madhya Pradesh government and Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI).

Last year in January, solar power tariff had dropped to a new low, with Finland-based energy firm Fortum Finnsurya Energy quoting Rs 4.34 a unit to bag the mandate to set up a 70-MW solar plant under NTPC's Bhadla Solar Park tender.

In November 2015, the tariff had touched Rs 4.63 per unit following aggressive bidding by US-based SunEdison, the world's biggest developer of renewable energy power plants.

Quote
China to plow $361 billion into renewable fuel by 2020

China will plow 2.5 trillion yuan ($361 billion) into renewable power generation by 2020, the country's energy agency said on Thursday, as the world's largest energy market continues to shift away from dirty coal power towards cleaner fuels.

The investment will create over 13 million jobs in the sector, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said in a blueprint document that lays out its plan to develop the nation's energy sector during the five-year 2016 to 2020 period.

The NEA said installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power will contribute to about half of new electricity generation by 2020.

The agency did not disclose more details on where the funds, which equate to about $72 billion each year, would be spent.

Still, the investment reflects Beijing's continued focus on curbing the use of fossil fuels, which have fostered the country's economic growth over the past decade, as it ramps up its war on pollution.

Last month, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country's economic planner, said in its own five-year plan, that solar power will receive 1 trillion yuan of spending, as the country seeks to boost capacity by five times. That's equivalent to about 1,000 major solar power plants, according to experts' estimates.

The spending comes as the cost of building large-scale solar plants has dropped by as much as 40 percent since 2010. China became the world's top solar generator last year.

"The government may exceed these targets because there are more investment opportunities in the sector as costs go down," said Steven Han, renewable analyst with securities firm Shenyin Wanguo.

Some 700 billion yuan will go towards wind farms, 500 billion to hydro power with tidal and geothermal getting the rest, the NDRC said.

The NEA's job creation forecast differs from the NDRC's in December that said it expected an additional 3 million jobs, bringing the total in the sector to 13 million by 2020.

Concerns about the social and economic costs of China's air pollution have increased as the northern parts of the country, including the capital Beijing, have battled a weeks-long bout of hazardous smog.

Illustrating the enormity of the challenge, the NEA repeated on Thursday that renewables will still only account for just 15 percent of overall energy consumption by 2020, equivalent to 580 million tonnes of coal.

More than half of the nation's installed power capacity will still be fueled by coal over the same period.

(Reporting by Meng Meng and Beijing Monitoring Desk; Writing by Josephine Mason; Editing by Michael Perry and Christian Schmollinger)

QuoteThis week, China's Energy Administration issued a directive to cancel planning and construction on 85 coal plants in the country, according to The New York Times. An additional 18 were ordered to be canceled late last year. The 103 plants represent an astounding 120GW of capacity that would have come online for the country in the coming years.

...

Quote

Artificial North Sea island: Danish, Dutch and German firms launch bid to make 'science fiction' plan a reality

The proposed island, complete with harbour and airport, is designed to act as a hub for vast new offshore wind farms supplying power for more than 80 million people

...

Quote
Power Link Island Project To Proceed

March 15, 2017Energy Matters


An ambitious plan to build an artificial island in the North Sea that will act as a renewable energy hub looks set to go ahead.

On March 23, the Netherlands' TenneT TSO B.V., Denmark's Energinet.dk and Germany's TenneT TSO GmbH will ink a deal that will see a large renewable European electricity system established in the North Sea.

Central to this plan is the construction of "Power Link Islands". Between 70,000 MW to 100,000 MW of wind farms could be connected to these islands; with transmission cables running to the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Norway and Belgium.

The alternating current generated by the wind farms will be converted at stations on the island to direct current for transmission. Using direct current connections also as interconnectors will boost the efficiency of these connections from roughly 40% towards 100% says TenneT.

Through the project, wind energy generated long distances from the shore will assume the cost benefits of near-shore wind power.

"This project can significantly contribute to a completely renewable supply of electricity in Northwest Europe," said Mel Kroon, CEO of TenneT. "TenneT and Energinet.dk both have extensive experience in the fields of onshore grids, the connection of offshore wind energy and cross-border connections."

The first artificial island will cover around 6 square kilometres and incorporate an airstrip, harbour, worker accommodation and various workshops. It will be able to support around 30GW of connected wind farms.

The island will be situated on Dogger Bank; a huge area covering approximately 17,600 square kilometres and with a depth ranging from 15 to 36 metres. The shallow nature of the region will reduce the costs of building the island and surrounding wind farms. This part of the North Sea also has significant and reliable wind energy resources.

"In short, an island in the middle of the North Sea offers everything necessary to make offshore wind energy a success," says TenneT.

The artificial islands are part of a larger plan, the North Sea Wind Power Hub project, announced by TenneT in June 2016.

TenneT provides power transmission services for approximately 41 million people. Energinet.dk is the Danish national transmission system operator for electricity and natural gas.

Quote
Northern Lights: Large-Scale Solar Power Is Spreading Across the U.S.
BY CHERYL KATZ • MARCH 23, 2017

Once largely confined to the sunny Southwest, utility-scale solar power plants are now being built everywhere from Minnesota to Alabama to Maine. Aided by plunging costs and improving technologies, these facilities are expected to provide a big boost to U.S. solar energy production.

------------------

Drive through the frosty stubble of central Minnesota soybean and cornfields this winter and you'd come upon a surprising sight — acres and acres of solar panels glinting under the northern sun. The 1,000-acre North Star Solar farm, which opened in December, is the largest, most northerly solar power plant in the United States, generating up to 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 20,000 homes. Prone to smothering blizzards, subzero temperatures, and scant sunlight for much of the year, this boreal clime seems an unlikely spot for a major utility-scale solar installation. But the North Star facility will soon be joined by a 100-megawatt solar plant in neighboring Wisconsin set to break ground later this year.

Thanks to sharply falling prices for solar photovoltaic panels, rapid advances in harvesting the sun's energy, and support from tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, and state renewable energy mandates, a clean energy technology once largely confined to the desert Southwest is now quickly extending its reach. Idaho and Maine recently opened their first multi-megawatt plants. Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and Nebraska are also making their first forays into utility-scale solar, while Floridaand Georgia are in the process of super-sizing their existing capacity.

Throughout the United States, more than 10.5 gigawatts (10,500 megawatts) of utility-scale solar was added to the electric grid in 2016 — enough to power more than 2 million homes — and more than 8 gigawatts are scheduled to come online this year, according to a new industry report. Led by utility-sized projects (generally 10 megawatts or larger and producing electricity to sell), the total U.S. solar capacity — including photovoltaic panels on the roofs of homes and buildings — is expected to nearly triple over the next five years.

"Minnesota is not the first place you think of to build a big solar project, but there have recently been several projects in the 50 to 100 megawatt range built there," says Mark Bolinger, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who conducts an annual analysis of utility-scale solar costs and trends. Bolinger says wholesale power prices from the new Minnesota solar plants are around 6 cents per kilowatt hour — numbers formerly seen only in places like Arizona and New Mexico. "I think that's a good indication that solar is really starting to find its legs and is able to compete more broadly across the U.S.," says Bolinger.

Indeed, electricity produced by new utility-scale solar facilities these days can be as cheap or cheaper than electricity from new conventional coal-fired or natural gas-fired facilities. Government support has helped lead to this "price parity," but increasingly solar energy can compete without state or federal incentives.

The utility-scale solar boom is resounding globally. A just-completed 648-megawatt plant in the southern India state of Tamil Nadu, said to be the world's largest, will power up to 150,000 homes; it will soon be topped by a 750-megawatt solar plant under construction to the north in Madhya Pradesh. China has been building solar at a furious pace, accounting for nearly half of the 76-plus gigawatts added worldwide in 2016. Utility-scale solar is poised to take off in Australia this year, with 11 new facilities being built across four states, and large projects are in the works everywhere from a behemoth 1.18-gigawatt installation in the United Arab Emirates, to a 180-megawatt facility in Peru. Even Russia's radioactive wasteland at Chernobyl may soon be the site of a massive 2-gigawatt solar farm.

With more than $20 billion invested in the U.S., the solar pipeline is now at an all-time high, according to a new analysis by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Nearly 18 gigawatts of upcoming utility-scale projects are currently under contract in the U.S., meaning plant operators have signed power-purchase agreements and the facilities are highly likely to be completed in the next two to three years. This surge of large solar energy installations will nearly double the roughly 5 million U.S. homes now powered by utility-scale solar. What's more, projects totaling an additional 36 gigawatts are now in the planning phase, according to statistics compiled by the SEIA.

[IMG]

Some of these projects are being developed by solar energy companies and sold to private investors, which then sell the electricity to public utilities or independent power producers. Other projects are built and owned by utilities or their affiliates. The new Minnesota installations are part of a state effort to meet its 25 percent renewable energy standard, set by the legislature in 2007 and signed by then- Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Republican. The $180 million North Star Solar plant, the largest, was commissioned by Xcel Energy, a utility holding company based in Minneapolis.

Under the U.S. Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative, research and development projects aimed at making solar energy costs competitive with conventional sources of electricity worked so well that the program reached its price targets — 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale systems — three years ahead of schedule. The target has now been reset to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2030.

The SunShot program gave a major boost to U.S. solar energy development. But its days, and those of other federal renewable energy programs, may be numbered. The Trump administration is now wholeheartedly embracing fossil fuels, dismantling Obama-era environmental initiatives, and cutting funding for clean-energy research and development. In his 2018 budget, President Trump pulled funds for the Clean Power Plan, a key Environmental Protection Agency regulation reducing carbon emissions from power plants, which would have given an additional boost to renewables.

Loan guarantees and other federal programs that have helped drive clean energy development are also on the Trump administration's hit list. The budget calls for reducing funding for renewable energy projects at the Department of Energy and its national laboratories by 18 percent. While the budget is preliminary and subject to revision by Congress, the climate of uncertainty is unsettling for the solar industry.

"Who knows what's going to happen?" said Daniel Kammen, an energy and resources professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "The situation has put a rush on projects that are in planning... and put a worry in investors in the long-term."

The most damaging impact for utility-scale solar in the U.S. would come if Congress rescinds the 30 percent Business Energy Investment Tax Credit, a key tool for solar energy development. The credit, initially set to expire at the end of last year, was extended another five years by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2015.

Even without government backing, analysts say the costs of utility-scale solar are dropping so quickly that economic realities, rather than incentives and regulations, are now the industry's main driver.

Georgia Public Utilities Commissioner Lauren "Bubba" McDonald can attest to that. The conservative southern state went from having almost no utility-scale solar a few years ago to becoming the third-largest installer in 2016 — with no government subsidies, tax incentives, or renewable energy mandates. "Zero," McDonald says. "Free-market."

McDonald led the effort in 2013 when he noted steep drops in solar panel prices.
The state utility, Georgia Power, was about to issue a request for new generating facilities to meet rising electricity demand.

"They did not have one watt of solar power [included in their plan]," McDonald says. "I went to the power company and said, 'We can do this as partners or we can do it as adversaries — if we're partners, and it works, we both win.'"

The result: "We put in 525 megawatts of utility-scale solar." Georgia has since commissioned an additional 1,200 megawatts, and now has more than $1.9 billion invested in solar of all types, he says. Next-door neighbor Florida has followed suit, switching on three 74.5-megawatt solar plants last year, with four more to come in 2017. North Carolina and Texas also have big projects underway.

Utility-scale solar's progress is so striking that even some former skeptics have changed their minds about the industry. Robert McCullough, a long-time energy analyst, says he used to consider utility-scale solar's prospects as basically hype. "I'd been hearing that all of this is just around the corner, and then one day it was staring me in the face," says McCullough, principal of the Oregon-based industry consulting firm McCullough Research. In the past couple of years, he said, cost shifts have been so astonishing that "now we have really quite a revolution going on... The scary thing is you've now heard this from a cynic."

In the past seven years, the price tag for utility-scale solar in the U.S. dropped 85 percent, as equipment prices plunged, manufacturing techniques improved, and developers gained experience that enabled them to build projects more economically.

While Western states still dominate the industry — more than 77 percent of the solar power generated nationwide last year came from west of the Rockies, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — solar is marching northward and eastward.

Increased photovoltaic panel efficiency and other technological improvements are leading the way. New designs allow photovoltaic modules to harvest the weak early morning and evening light, making short days longer. Trackers that follow the sun across the sky increase yield, enabling projects in cloudy places like Oregon. And in Minnesota, the "unique challenges of a colder climate," as North Star Solar developer Chase Whitney of Community Solar Energy put it, have been addressed with solutions like panels that can essentially shake off snow.

Obstacles do remain. The nation's outdated transmission system can't efficiently handle the renewable energy influx. Peak output from solar and wind farms is often wasted by an overloaded electric grid. More and better electricity storage is urgently needed. And in addition to federal efforts to thwart clean energy programs, numerous Republican-controlled state legislatures are considering legislation to reduce or eliminate funding for renewable energy incentives and initiatives.

But with falling costs and a jam-packed pipeline of projects ahead, analysts say big solar should be able to maintain its momentum without the government at its back. "It all ties back to economics," Kammen says. "No political party can deny how much progress has been made on prices for wind and solar — but in particular solar — in the last few years."

Georgia's McDonald agrees. "The sun's going to shine 60 years from now," he says, "and those electrons are free. They're free to me, they're free to utilities, they're free to everybody."

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 23, 2017, 09:54:53 AM
11 million homes? Are you sure? That's barely enough power for 40 Deloreons.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 23, 2017, 10:03:36 AM
You're missing my Back to the Future reference.  :(

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 23, 2017, 10:03:36 AM
You're missing my Back to the Future reference.  :(

Quote
Solar power in California started setting production records on February 24th (http://'https://twitter.com/California_ISO/status/835269781431308288') – production peaks have continued to occur since then. On Thursday of last week renewables broke 56% of total demand (http://'https://twitter.com/California_ISO/status/845045473756901376'). This record is partially the result of a national 2016 installation boom of greater than 14GW of solar power (http://'https://electrek.co/2017/02/12/65-of-electricity-from-2016-infrastructure-will-be-clean-for-decades/') that California took 35% of.

According to the daily report on March 23rd, solar peaked around 11.16 AM (http://'http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20170323_DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf') – three minutes before the solar + wind peak of 49.2% (http://'https://twitter.com/California_ISO/status/845045938271928320') and nine minutes before renewables peaked 56.7% (http://'https://twitter.com/California_ISO/status/845045938271928320').

Renewable's produced 186GWh on the 23rd – 33% of the day's 563GWh electricity usage. Solar power will continue to add 2+GW/year to California's electricity grid. This heavy volume of growth is causing strain on the system – solar power will be curtailed in heavy amounts this spring (http://'https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/californias-flood-of-green-energy-could-drive-a-record-6-to-8-gigawatts-of'), with this having already begun in February (http://'https://www.rtoinsider.com/caiso-spring-oversupply-hydro-solar-40231/'). Other major renewable countries have had challenges as they've grown – most recently large amounts of wind power in China had to be curtailed (http://'http://www.eco-business.com/news/china-turns-to-energy-storage-to-push-renewables/').

California ISO notes they might have to curtail 6,000-8,000MW of electricity. If they were speaking in total production at a peak moment, that would represent 73-98% of last Thursday's solar peak. If that peak were to run for an hour – it would fill 75-100 of the 80MWh Tesla PowerPack stations (http://'https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/tesla-cto-energy-storage-growing-as-fast-as-we-can-humanly-scale-it-gallery-powerpack-station/') installed for Southern California Edison. Last year the USA installed 336MWh of energy storage – 23 times the amount of solar that might be curtailed.

US Department of Energy wants the nations electricity grid to be able to handle 100% (http://'https://electrek.co/2016/05/25/us-department-energy-100-solar-power-electricity-grid/') mid-day peak solar power, California will give them a local testing ground – but the Danish at 114% will give them a true research subject (http://'https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/843102612702580741').

Renewable electricity production peaks as part of electricity usage are occurring more often – and these days they're happening in 'bigger places.' Wind power provided 20% of Europe's electricity (http://'https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/843522578916528129') on March 19th, and the Midwest USA popped above 50% demand from wind (http://'https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/wind-penetration-on-central-us-grid-hits-52-sunday-night-breaking-record/').

A plethora of energy storage solutions are being tested to help deal with these peak demand moments. The lithium-ion dream is being led by the Tesla Gigafactory 1 (http://'https://electrek.co/2017/03/23/tesla-gigafactory-aerial-picture/') – BYD is also working on its own products in the segment (http://'https://electrek.co/2016/06/28/battery-market-electric-vehicles-10-billion-2020-tesla-byd-vw/') and is an experienced company who was backed by Warren Buffet long ago (http://'http://www.cnbc.com/id/26916857'). There are many groups investing across Europe (http://'https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/euro-gigafactory-rivals-line-up-against-tesla') – in various reports I've seen up to 20 "Gigafactories" (over 1 GWh) being built globally by the early-mid 2020's.

If curtailment continues into the future – it would seem to make sense for energy storage companies to offer to hold onto the energy for a certain fee. In other places – excess electricity has led to electricity users getting paid to consume (http://'https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much-renewable-energy-on-sunday-that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/').

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2017, 01:09:03 PM
Jimmy - that's not unequivocally positive.  Basically the article is saying that solar + wind is approaching a ceiling in terms of its contribution to the grid, at least in the absence of an economically viable storage solution.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 28, 2017, 09:58:51 PM
They have an installation with tens of thousands of MWH storage? How much did that cost?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2017, 11:55:01 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
According to this, clean energy jobs in the US outnumber fossil fuel jobs 2.5 to 1: https://www.docdroid.net/G6njmYC/sierra-club-clean-energy-jobs-report-final-1.pdf.html

Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2017, 11:56:23 PM

Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

That's what's hilariously sad about all this coal bullshit; not even the energy sector wants it.  LNG is cheaper, more efficient and easier to transport.

QuoteExxon urges Trump to keep US in Paris climate accord
Letter comes as White House seeks to unravel Obama greenhouse commitments

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil group, has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord agreed at the end of 2015.

In a letter to President Donald Trump's special assistant for international energy and the environment, Exxon argues that the Paris accord is "an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change".

The letter was sent last week, but has emerged as Mr Trump is preparing to announce executive orders beginning a rollback several of Barack Obama's climate policies, while leaving the question of Paris open.

Trump administration officials have said a decision on participation in Paris is still "under discussion", and have been soliciting views from US energy companies.

Exxon argues in its letter that there are several reasons for the US to stay in the Paris accord, including the opportunity to support greater use of natural gas, which creates lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal when burnt for power generation.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2017, 11:55:01 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2017, 07:15:03 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2017, 11:55:01 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing.  A number of companies are currently competing to integrate high capacity storage into electrical grids around the world.

Quote from: Jacob on March 29, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Seems like green jobs is definitely a thing.

Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2017, 09:14:41 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2017, 07:15:03 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2017, 11:55:01 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2017, 11:46:45 PM
It's a brand new technology. They haven't installed that much, but they will.

What's holding them back, if it's economically viable?

Nothing.  A number of companies are currently competing to integrate high capacity storage into electrical grids around the world.

I'm not sure that this is evidence of economic viability.  Electrical utilities are willing to experiment with non-economically-viable systems in hopes that they are advancing the science towards economically-viable end states.    Some grids (those with high marginal production costs) will find it economical to use battery storage before others with lower marginal costs.

I don't think enough work has been done to evaluate the real costs of battery storage on a large scale yet. Issues like battery life in a real-world application are not resolved except in the loose estimate sense.

QuoteExperienced Underground Coal Miners
Custom Staffing Services - Owensville, IN
$22 an hour
Custom Staffing Services
116 reviews
Read what employees say about working here.
Experienced Underground Coal Miners Needed!

(apply ASAP, positions won't last!)

Positions Available:

4 Mechanics
8 Roof Bolters
4 Car Drivers
2 Scoop Operators
6 3rd Shift (Set Up, Rock Dust, Belt & Power, etc.)
Benefits Include:

Medical Insurance (after 30 days + the first of the month)
Paid Vacation (after 1 year)
Paid Holidays (after 1 year)
Referral Bonus ($300)
Paid Weekly (Direct Deposit & Global Cash Card offered)
All candidates must pass physical and drug screen

To Apply:

Bring your Driver's License, Social Security Card, Indiana Experienced Underground Card, & most recent Annual Refresher Training Certificate to:

Custom Staffing

1820 N. Green River Rd.

Evansville, IN 47715

8am to 3pm (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday)

Salary: $22.00 /hour

Required education:

High school or equivalent
Required experience:

Underground Coal MIning: 1 year

Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 30, 2017, 10:58:27 AM
You'd have to be high to want to work in a coal mine.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2017, 12:53:06 AM
But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2017, 12:44:14 PM
I support Seedy working in a coal mine.

Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2017, 12:46:28 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2017, 12:44:14 PM
I support Seedy working in a coal mine.

No you don't. You may SAY you support him working in a coal mine, but in terms of practical action you're doing nothing to support him.

Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2017, 12:46:28 PM

Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2017, 12:44:14 PM
I support Seedy working in a coal mine.

No you don't. You may SAY you support him working in a coal mine, but in terms of practical action you're doing nothing to support him.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2017, 12:53:06 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Quote from: Jacob on March 30, 2017, 12:43:36 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2017, 12:53:06 AM
But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Good point.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 09:34:05 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2017, 12:53:06 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Oh I think there a lot more play left on that trend.   Not to mention once you get a much larger installed base, regular maintenance and upgrades will be more significant

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2017, 10:26:19 PM
I think Solarcity's (now part of Tesla) idea of pushing the idea of installing solar panels on already existing homes/buildings, thus creating solar "farms" in areas that are already built-up/developed is a very good one.  It just requires a sensible business model.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2017, 10:40:52 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2017, 10:26:19 PM
I think Solarcity's (now part of Tesla) idea of pushing the idea of installing solar panels on already existing homes/buildings, thus creating solar "farms" in areas that are already built-up/developed is a very good one.  It just requires a sensible business model.

That's a big issue here. Buffet got it essentially destroyed to the point that all the solar companies died or left the state.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2017, 09:53:33 PM

So let's build gigantic solar fields in the Sahara. What could go wrong.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2017, 09:53:33 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 09:34:05 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2017, 12:53:06 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2017, 12:27:45 AM
Yes the Dept of Labor data backs that up as well.  Also, the trend in the coal industry has been greater automation and mining techniques that require much less labor - this would be facilitated by deregulation.   Pushing coal vs. solar makes zero sense in terms of promoting quality job growth, not to mention the other factors.

But as we all know the majority of jobs in green energy are in manufacture and installation.  We seem to be undergoing an installation boom right now.  I don't expect that ratio to be maintained.  Unless carbon extraction drops enormously.

Oh I think there a lot more play left on that trend.   Not to mention once you get a much larger installed base, regular maintenance and upgrades will be more significant

So let's build gigantic solar fields in the Sahara. What could go wrong.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2017, 11:10:22 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2017, 10:40:52 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2017, 10:26:19 PM
I think Solarcity's (now part of Tesla) idea of pushing the idea of installing solar panels on already existing homes/buildings, thus creating solar "farms" in areas that are already built-up/developed is a very good one.  It just requires a sensible business model.

That's a big issue here. Buffet got it essentially destroyed to the point that all the solar companies died or left the state.

I'm not sure I understand what you're refering to here? :unsure:

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2017, 11:33:17 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2017, 11:10:22 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2017, 10:40:52 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2017, 10:26:19 PM
I think Solarcity's (now part of Tesla) idea of pushing the idea of installing solar panels on already existing homes/buildings, thus creating solar "farms" in areas that are already built-up/developed is a very good one.  It just requires a sensible business model.

That's a big issue here. Buffet got it essentially destroyed to the point that all the solar companies died or left the state.

I'm not sure I understand what you're refering to here? :unsure:

Come now Tim, this was a pretty easy Google search...


https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-solar-power-buffett-vs-musk/

Quote from: CNBC"Our work on used car value is focused on the technological obsolescence of the 250 million cars on US roads today – $2 trillion worth of cars. Tesla's cars can get better because they can learn," Jonas said. "They put in that equipment so that the vehicle five years from now is much more superhuman and much better than the one that is just learning and watching right now. Our used car thesis is that in a five-year period, we are running scenarios of used car value being off by as much as 50 percent."

QuoteAfter the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979, regulators moved to overhaul safety requirements for nuclear power plants. This led to the temporary closure of some older nuclear power plants governed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) when they couldn't meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) newly tightened standards.

Now, Carnegie Mellon assistant professor of economics and public policy Edson Severnini says those closures may have caused reduced birth weight in children in the area at the time, due to pollution exposure from the increased reliance on coal-burning power plants. The sudden removal of nuclear power, which doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, led to a ramp-up in the amount of power being provided by nearby coal plants, Severnini wrote. That led to increases in particle pollution in areas adjacent to coal power plants, measured by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in total suspended particulates (TSP).
At the same time, average birth weight for infants declined 134 grams.

Birth weight is a strong indicator of the health of a baby, and low birth weights can suggest a host of health issues in the future, including lower IQ and earlier mortality, particularly from cardiovascular complications. The author concedes that the exact biological mechanism that causes pollution to contribute to low birth weight is still under investigation, but other studies have found that there is a link between the two.

Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2017, 06:22:44 AM
Hopefully we'll get a new weight loss program for our infants with the current administration.

QuoteThe end of coal: EU energy companies pledge no new plants from 2020

Companies from every EU nation except Poland and Greece sign up to initiative in bid to meet Paris pledges and limit effects of climate change


Europe's energy utilities have rung a death knell for coal, with a historic pledge that no new coal-fired plants will be built in the EU after 2020.

The surprise announcement was made at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday, 442 years after the continent's first pit was sunk by Sir George Bruce of Carnock, in Scotland.

National energy companies from every EU nation – except Poland and Greece – have signed up to the initiative, which will overhaul the bloc's energy-generating future.

A press release from Eurelectric, which represents 3,500 utilities with a combined value of over €200bn, reaffirmed a pledge to deliver on the Paris climate agreement, and vowed a moratorium on new investments in coal plants after 2020.

"This statement sends a clear signal to the market that 26 out of 28 member states in the EU have backed a commitment not to invest in new coal plants after 2020," said Kristian Ruby, Eurelectric's secretary-general.

"History will judge this message we are bringing here today. It is a clear message that speaks for itself, and should be seen in close relation to the Paris agreement and our commitment to provide 100% carbon-neutral electricity by 2050."

"Europe's energy companies are putting their money where their mouths are," he added.

Coal has been central to Europe's development, powering the industrial revolution, trades union history, and even the EU's precursor, the European coal and steel community.

But it also emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, plus deadly toxins such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter, which are responsible for more than 20,000 deaths each year.

Wendel Trio, the director of Climate Action Network Europe, hailed the news as "the beginning of the end for coal".

"It is now clear that there is no future for coal in the EU," he said. "The question is: what is the date for its phase out in the EU, and how hard will the coal industry fight to keep plants open, even if they are no longer economically viable?"

Renewable industry sources welcomed the news, albeit with the caveat that it would allow continued new investments in the industry for another three years.

"The debate about coal is over," one industry insider told the Guardian. "This is the only way that we can go forward with decarbonisation. But it would be good to see a phase out of existing coal plants."

The energy utilities' initiative faced initial resistance in Germany which is relying on coal to bridge a move away from nuclear energy to renewables under the "energiewende" transition.

In the end though, only Poland which depends on coal for around 90% of its electricity and Greece, which still plans new coal plants, bucked what is becoming a global trend.

New coal plant constructions fell by almost two thirds across the world in 2016, with the EU and US leading the way in retiring in existing coal capacity.

The move is also in line with a pathway for meeting the 2C target laid out by climate scientists last month, as a way of limiting future stranded asset risks.

Europe will have to phase out all of its coal plants by 2030 or else "vastly overshoot" its Paris climate pledges, climate experts say.

António Mexia, the CEO of Portuguese energy giant EDP and president of the Eurelectric trade association, said: "The power sector is determined to lead the energy transition and back our commitment to the low-carbon economy with concrete action."

"With power supply becoming increasingly clean, electric technologies are an obvious choice for replacing fossil fuel based systems, for instance in the transport sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

"The challenge for policy makers in the next two years will be to target the political instruments, ensure that they are complementary and advance decarbonisation and electrification at the same time," said Eurelectric's secretary-general, Kristian Ruby.

Ruby called for a ratcheting up of the cap on CO2 emissions under the EU's emissions trading system, to speed the transition to a low carbon economy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2017, 06:25:45 AM

Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2017, 06:22:44 AM
Hopefully we'll get a new weight loss program for our infants with the current administration.

Wait for their next big pro-coal PSA..."Lungs:  Full of Hot Air"

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2017, 10:37:26 AM
I think I can pull a couple strings and get you into a coal mine.  You up for it?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2017, 11:01:05 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2017, 10:37:26 AM
I think I can pull a couple strings and get you into a coal mine.  You up for it?

Go fuck yourself, niggerhater.  Like I said, you want me dead so much, you're just going to have to get in the fucking car and come do it yourself like a real man.  Black lung and shaft collapses is as much of a pussy out as eliminating my healthcare, you fetusfucking cuntstick.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2017, 11:01:05 AM
Go fuck yourself, niggerhater.  Like I said, you want me dead so much, you're just going to have to get in the fucking car and come do it yourself like a real man.  Black lung and shaft collapses is as much of a pussy out as eliminating my healthcare, you fetusfucking cuntstick.

Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Seedy, you're either taking too many, or too few, of your meds today.  Look after yourself buddy. :P :hug:

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2017, 11:27:31 AM
Seedy's like Animal Mother.  You might not believe it, but under fire he is one of the finest human beings in the world. All he needs is somebody to throw hand grenades at him the rest of his life.

And I'm like Eightball.  I know he doesn't mean all those bad things he says.

Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Seedy, you're either taking too many, or too few, of your meds today.  Look after yourself buddy. :P :hug:

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2017, 12:33:44 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Seedy, you're either taking too many, or too few, of your meds today.  Look after yourself buddy. :P :hug:

Seedy's response seems a perfectly reasonable to me.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2017, 08:58:14 AM
Morgan Stanely thinks that Tesla's Model 3 will crash the used car market and make all previous models obsolete.

Here's the money quote, but the video is five minutes plus, so I'd recommend watching it.

Quote from: CNBC"Our work on used car value is focused on the technological obsolescence of the 250 million cars on US roads today – $2 trillion worth of cars. Tesla's cars can get better because they can learn," Jonas said. "They put in that equipment so that the vehicle five years from now is much more superhuman and much better than the one that is just learning and watching right now. Our used car thesis is that in a five-year period, we are running scenarios of used car value being off by as much as 50 percent."

https://youtu.be/Jqza-1VnBVE

Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2017, 12:54:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 05, 2017, 12:33:44 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 05, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Seedy, you're either taking too many, or too few, of your meds today.  Look after yourself buddy. :P :hug:

Seedy's response seems a perfectly reasonable to me.

I dunno - not just in this thread, but others, he was in a free-fire mood this morning.  Certainly not unheard of for the dear Count, but not his usual rules of engagement.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2017, 06:05:59 PM
Probably has something to do with the fact that the vast majority of you are fucking assholes.

QuoteKentucky Coal Museum installs solar panels to save on electricity bills

FRANKFORT, KY (AP) – Don't look to the Kentucky Coal Museum to bring coal back.

The museum is installing solar panels on its roof, part of a project aimed at lowering the energy costs of one of the city's largest electric customers. It's also a symbol of the state's efforts to move away from coal as its primary energy source as more coal-fired power plants are replaced by natural gas. The state legislature recently lifted its decades-old ban on nuclear power.

"It's a little ironic or coincidental that you are putting solar green energy on a coal museum," said Roger Noe, a former state representative who sponsored the legislation that created the coal museum. "Coal comes from nature, the sun rays come from nature so it all works out to be a positive thing."
(...)

"The people here are sort of in awe of this solar thing," Humphrey said.

The Southeast Community and Technical College, which owns the museum, expects the solar panels to save between $8,000 and $10,000 a year on energy costs, according to spokesman Brandon Robinson.

Quote
Trump Admin. Outlines Global Solar Plan: 10 Terawatts By 2030
April 19th, 2017 by Tina Casey (http://https://cleantechnica.com/author/seawolf/)

President Trump talks a great game when it comes to US coal miners and coal jobs but he sure is walking the renewables walk. The latest item in the flood of renewable energy news pouring from the Energy Department since Inauguration Day is a new study that charts a do-able path for global energy producers to harvest 5-10 terawatts of solar power by 2030.

That's quite a big feat considering that the current scope of global solar generation is still measured in gigawatts, but then again President Trump is known to be a huge fan of the bigly (http://http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37483869).

Solar Power And Global Electricity Consumption
For those of you keeping score at home, a terawatt is 1,000 gigawatts. A gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts or one billion watts.

So yes, 10 terawatts is a heckuva lot of electricity. It's not enough to fulfill global demand, which hung around 15 terawatts as of 2015, but wind power (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2010/06/13/east-coast-governors-join-forces-for-clean-renewable-energy-from-wind/) and other renewables (http://http://planetsave.com/2016/03/30/hydropower-energy-facts-hydroelectric-power-facts/) could fill in the rest.

By way of comparison, last fall the International Energy Agency (http://https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-its-five-year-renewable-growth-forecast-as-2015-marks-record-year.html) issued a report that pegged global renewables at only 153 gigawatts in 2015, including wind and other sources as well as solar.

IEA has some nice things to say about the growth rate of renewable sources, but the agency is still looking at only 200 gigawatts by 2020 — and again, that includes a healthy dose of wind and other renewables.

10 Terawatts By 2030?
So, how does the Trump Administration expect everybody to make up the difference?

That's where something called GASERI comes in. GASERI is the Global Alliance of Solar Energy Research Institutions, consisting of the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, and Japan's Research Center for Photovoltaic Technologies.

Systems, and Japan's Research Center for Photovoltaic Technologies.

Okay, so there are only three members, but those three pack a huge punch. Here's the CleanTechnica take from 2012, when GASERI was launched:

Forget your Avengers, your X-Men and your other super-groups (yes, we're talking about you, Queens of the Stone Age), if there is any planet saving to be done from now on it will be accomplished by the new Global Alliance of Solar Energy Research Institutions (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/12/u-s-germany-and-japan-form-gaseri-solar-project/).

As articulated by NREL, the organization's mission is to "accelerate progress toward shared solar research and development goals as well as to ensure sustainable long-term use of solar energy."

GASERI met right around this time last year to tease out some of the obstacles facing solar deployment.

Here's the takeaway:

...To provide a major contribution to global climate goals, total installations on the order of 20 TW will be needed by 2040. This will require stable PV R&D support (http://http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/24666) worldwide and systemic investments targeted at reducing production costs, increasing efficiency, and improving reliability.

An increasingly flexible electricity grid, increased availability of low-cost energy storage and demand-side management also will play key roles in enabling accelerated PV deployment...

Did you catch that thing about "stable PV R&D support?" US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has taken his share of hits on social issues, but in his brief tenure so far the Energy Department has been firing on all pistons with renewable energy news including foundational research (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/17/solar-ink-spells-bad-news-coal-trump-administration/) on solar cells, renewable hydrogen (http://http://www.triplepundit.com/2017/04/trump-administration-board-solar-powered-renewable-hydrogen/), and energy storage (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/18/creepy-herbicide-repurposed-solve-creepy-ev-battery-problem/) among many other topics.

Yes, 10 Terawatts By 2030
An NREL press release dated April 18 outlines the new solar report, produced under the GASERI umbrella.

The gist of it is that under favorable conditions, global solar capacity has the potential to climb into the 5-10 terawatt range.

These are the conditions:

A continued reduction in the cost of PV while also improving the performance of solar modules

A drop in the cost of and time required to expand manufacturing and installation capacity.

A move to more flexible grids that can handle high levels of PV through increased load shifting, energy storage, or transmission

An increase in demand for electricity by using more for transportation and heating or cooling

Continued progress in storage for energy generated by solar power.

Notice how they slipped that thing about increased demand in there. Apparently GASERI is not banking on gains in building energy efficiency to counterbalance the rise of EVs in transportation.

Everything else seems pretty doable, right? Regardless of Trump Administration policies, global PV costs will continue to drop (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/29/the-cost-of-half-a-billion-solar-panels-keeps-going-down/) and conversion efficiency will continue to improve.

A move to reduce solar installation "soft costs" is well under way, manufacturing processes are being streamlined (partly thanks to the rise of thin film solar), load shifting (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/21/load-shifting-with-electric-vehicles-is-a-great-match-to-wind-in-many-areas/) and other "smart grid" strategies are being deployed, and an energy storage revolution is brewing.

The biggest question is whether or not the US will put the full force of public policy behind the global effort to accelerate decarbonization.

You can get all the details in the journal Science (http://http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/141) under the title "Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: Trajectories and challenges."

No, Really, 10 Terawatts By 2030
Speaking of public policy, the timing of the GASERI solar announcement is rather interesting.

The day before NREL's press release, the Intertubes were all ablaze with news that Perry has ordered a review of the nation's electrical grid (http://http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329142-perry-orders-energy-department-study-of-electric-grid), presumably on marching orders from President Trump.

Some observers have taken that to mean that coal and nuclear energy will come out on top, but we think not.

GASERI issued a policy recap in the last weeks of the Obama Administration that noted the rise of distributed generation (http://https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/Advanced%20Technologies%20and%20Policy%20Implications_ICF_Final_9-21-2016_pdf.pdf) and the role of small scale solar (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/massive-us-utility-scale-solar-group-dives-small-scale-solar/), and so far the Trump Administration's Energy Department has not indicated any intention of diverging too far from that pathway.

To cite just one example, in February the Energy Department announced a new $30 million round of funding for innovative technologies (http://http://solarlove.org/energy-dept-president-donald-trump-im-not-dead-yet/) aimed at bringing more solar into the US grid mix.

Last week NREL hosted the Industry Growth Forum for clean energy technology (http://http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2017/41795) at its facility in Colorado with 400 stakeholders attending. Here's the money quote from NREL:

"The convergence of R&D success, entrepreneurial innovation, and a receptive investment community will accelerate advanced energy technologies into the marketplace...We are pleased to be able to leverage the convening power of the laboratory to facilitate this essential discourse."

Also, just in time for the March for Science (http://https://www.marchforscience.com/), this week the Energy Department's Grid Modernization Initiative (http://https://energy.gov/under-secretary-science-and-energy/grid-modernization-initiative) is staging a public peer review (http://https://ww2.eventrebels.com/er/Registration/StepRegInfo.jsp?ActivityID=20173&StepNumber=1) of 80 projects with the aim of developing best practices and lessons learned.

And, next week the global organization IEEE (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is hosting the 8th annual Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference in Washington, DC. One area of focus will be on integrating distributed energy sources (http://http://sites.ieee.org/isgt-2017/).

IEEE bills itself as "the world's largest technical professional society" so there's that.

Secretary Perry (http://https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/21/alive-us-energy-department-promotes-solar-wind-storage-news/) generally toes the Republican line but so far he has kept the Trump Administration's Energy Department humming along with a steady stream of news about renewable energy. The agency's main News & Blog page is rather thin but NREL, SunShot (http://https://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/listings/sunshot-news), EERE and other divisions keep churning out the good stuff.

Until the budget axe falls, it looks like the US is still on track to cooperate with the global push for decarbonization.

QuoteFirst coal-free day in Britain since 1880s

Britain has gone a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the 1880s, National Grid says.

The energy provider said Friday's lack of coal usage was a "watershed" moment.
Britain's previous longest continuous energy period without coal until now was 19 hours - first achieved last May, and again on Thursday.

The government plans to phase out Britain's last plants by 2025 in order to cut carbon emissions.

Friday is thought to be the first time the nation has not used coal to generate electricity since the world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882, at Holborn Viaduct in London.

Cordi O'Hara, of the National Grid, described Friday as "a watershed moment in how our energy system is changing".

She added: "The UK benefits from highly diverse and flexible sources of electricity. Our energy mix continues to change and National Grid adapts system operation to embrace these changes."

But Ms O'Hara says that while the country makes the transition to a low carbon system, coal remains an important source of energy.

According to Gridwatch.co.uk, around half of British energy on Friday came from natural gas, with about a quarter coming from nuclear plants.

Wind, biomass, and imported energy were also used.

QuoteBy John Moylan, BBC industry correspondent

Coal has powered Britain for more than a century.

But Friday's landmark moment - the first 24-hour period without any coal-powered generation - is a sign of how the once mighty fuel is being consigned to history.
Part of the reason is that solar panels and wind turbines now provide much more electricity to factories and homes. Lower power demand is a factor too - that's normal on a Friday.

And as older, uneconomic coal fired plants have closed in recent years, the fossil fuel has been playing a much smaller role in our energy system.

The last deep coal mine in the UK, Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire, closed in December 2015, bringing to an end centuries of deep coal mining in Britain.

Hannah Martin, from Greenpeace UK, said: "A decade ago, a day without coal would have been unimaginable, and in 10 years' time our energy system will have radically transformed again."

Coal remained a dominant part of the energy supply until the 1990s, but its use has fallen in recent years, as plants closed or switched to burning biomass such as wood pellets.

It accounted for just 9% of electricity generation in 2016 - down from 23% the year before.

However, there have been claims that using wood pellets to generate electricity is actually speeding up, not slowing down, climate warming.

A study published by Chatham House in February said wood is not carbon neutral and emissions from pellets are higher than coal, making pellet use a flawed policy.
The energy industry rejected the report, saying that wood energy cuts carbon significantly compared with fossil fuels.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2017, 07:19:21 AM
A significant achievement

....

Quote from: The Larch on April 25, 2017, 11:07:53 AM
You want oil powered stations? Enjoy the acid rain, then.  :P Natural gas powered stations are more efficient and less polluting under any metric, IIRC, why would you want oil powered stations around in this day and age?

Quote from: mongers on April 25, 2017, 11:48:43 AM

Quote from: The Larch on April 25, 2017, 11:07:53 AM
You want oil powered stations? Enjoy the acid rain, then.  :P Natural gas powered stations are more efficient and less polluting under any metric, IIRC, why would you want oil powered stations around in this day and age?

An added bit of flexibility, currently we rely a lot on gas and that will increase as more nuclear sites are retired somewhat early.

Quote


The Electric-Car Boom Is So Real Even Oil Companies Say It's Coming
by Tom Randall

April 26, 2017, 2:47 AM GMT+9 April 26, 2017, 3:56 AM GMT+9
Electric cars are coming fast -- and that's not just the opinion of carmakers anymore. Total SA (http://'https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FP:FP'), one of the world's biggest oil producers, is now saying EVs may constitute almost a third of new-car sales by the end of the next decade.

The surge in battery powered vehicles will cause demand for oil-based fuels to peak in the 2030s, Total Chief Energy Economist Joel Couse said at Bloomberg New Energy Finance's conference in New York on Tuesday. EVs will make up 15 percent to 30 percent of new vehicles by 2030, after which fuel "demand will flatten out," Couse said. "Maybe even decline."

Couse's projection for electric cars is the highest yet by a major oil company and exceeds BNEF's own forecast, said Colin McKerracher, head of advanced transport analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

"That's big," McKerracher said. "That's by far the most aggressive we've seen by any of the majors."

Electric cars currently make up about 1 percent of global vehicle sales, but traditional carmakers are preparing for transformation. In 2018, Volkswagen plows into electrification with an Audi SUV and the first high-speed U.S. charging network to rival Tesla's Superchargers. Tata Motors Ltd.'s Jaguar and Volvo Cars (http://'https://www.bloomberg.com/news/terminal/OONNH36K50YE') both have promising cars on the way too, and by 2020, the avalanche really begins, with Mercedes-Benz, VW, General Motors Co. and others releasing dozens of new models.

"By 2020 there will be over 120 different models of EV across the spectrum," said Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "These are great cars. They will make the internal combustion equivalent look old fashioned."

Quote...

There is no doubt that China has emerged as a formidable player in the global renewable energy race. In its domestic sphere it is greening its electric generation system at a rate that exceeds 10% in a decade. In 2016 the country reached a level of dependence on fossil fuels for electric power generation of 64%, down from 77% a decade earlier.
...

In the electric power sector, the headline results are that in the year 2016, China's total electric power capacity increased to just over 1.64 trillion watts (1.64 TW), with water, wind and solar sources accounting for about 34% — up from 32.5% in 2015. In the decade since 2007, China's reliance on WWS sources (water, wind and solar) in terms of capacity has risen from 20% to 34% in 2016 – a 14% increase in a decade, and from 16% to 25% in terms of actual electric generation. At this rate, one third of China's electric power generation would be based on WWS sources by the middle of the 2020s.

QuoteGlobal oil discoveries and new projects fell to historic lows in 2016

Global oil discoveries fell to a record low in 2016 as companies continued to cut spending and conventional oil projects sanctioned were at the lowest level in more than 70 years, according to the International Energy Agency, which warned that both trends could continue this year.

Oil discoveries declined to 2.4 billion barrels in 2016, compared with an average of 9 billion barrels per year over the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the volume of conventional resources sanctioned for development last year fell to 4.7 billion barrels, 30% lower than the previous year as the number of projects that received a final investment decision dropped to the lowest level since the 1940s.

This sharp slowdown in activity in the conventional oil sector was the result of reduced investment spending driven by low oil prices. It brings an additional cause of concern for global energy security at a time of heightened geopolitical risks in some major producer countries, such as Venezuela.

The slump in the conventional oil sector contrasts with the resilience of the US shale industry. There, investment rebounded sharply and output rose, on the back of production costs being reduced by 50% since 2014. This growth in US shale production has become a fundamental factor in balancing low activity in the conventional oil industry. 

Conventional oil production of 69 mb/d represents by far the largest share of global oil output of 85 mb/d. In addition, 6.5 mb/d come from liquids production from the US shale plays, and the rest is made up of other natural gas liquids and unconventional oil sources such as oil sands and heavy oil.

With global demand expected to grow by 1.2 mb/d a year in the next five years, the IEA has repeatedly warned that an extended period of sharply lower oil investment could lead to a tightening in supplies. Exploration spending is expected to fall again in 2017 for the third year in a row to less than half 2014 levels, resulting in another year of low discoveries. The level of new sanctioned projects so far in 2017 remains depressed.

"Every new piece of evidence points to a two-speed oil market, with new activity at a historic low on the conventional side contrasted by remarkable growth in US shale production," said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director. "The key question for the future of the oil market is for how long can a surge in US shale supplies make up for the slow pace of growth elsewhere in the oil sector."

The US shale industry has lowered its costs to such an extent that in many cases it is now more competitive than conventional projects. The average break-even price in the Permian basin in Texas, for example, is now at USD 40-45/bbl. Liquids production from US shale plays is expected to expand by 2.3 mb/d by 2022 at current prices, and expand even more if prices rise further. 

The offshore sector, which accounts for almost a third of crude oil production and is a crucial component of future global supplies, has been particularly hard hit by the industry's slowdown. In 2016, only 13% of all conventional resources sanctioned were offshore, compared with more than 40% on average between 2000 and 2015.

In the North Sea, for instance, oil investments fell to less than USD 25 billion in 2016, about half the level of 2014. Coincidentally, this is now approaching the level of spending in offshore wind projects in the North Sea, which has doubled to about USD 20 billion in the same period.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 26, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
Fuck electric cars. I'm throughly unimpressed so far.

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2017, 11:01:25 AM
me too.  It's very good for California, less for Quebec and other northern climates.

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2017, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 26, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
Fuck electric cars. I'm throughly unimpressed so far.

me too.  It's very good for California, less for Quebec and other northern climates.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2017, 11:08:59 AM

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2017, 11:01:25 AM
me too.  It's very good for California, less for Quebec and other northern climates.

Why are they not good in cold weather?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2017, 11:15:07 AM

Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2017, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 26, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
Fuck electric cars. I'm throughly unimpressed so far.

me too.  It's very good for California, less for Quebec and other northern climates.

?
Don't you have electric generation in Quebec??

Quote
BTW "northern climates" happen to be pretty good places to build solar power plants.  Heat is not essential to solar power generation - in fact, some panel designs are more efficient in cold weather, and the panels tend to degrade less quickly.  Cold climate sites that are high (altitude), dry and have clear skies are good prospects for solar.

Quote
Biggest U.S. Companies Setting More Renewable-Energy Targets

by Brian Eckhouse

‎April‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎8‎:‎00‎ ‎PM

Almost half of the biggest U.S. companies have established clean-energy targets for themselves, according to a report Tuesday from sustainable investors and environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund.

It's not just the biggest U.S. companies -- 44 percent of the smallest 100 members of the Fortune 500 have also set goals, up from 25 percent in 2014, and 48 percent of the entire list.

Many are finding that renewable energy isn't just cleaner, it's also often cheaper. About 190 Fortune 500 companies collectively reported about $3.7 billion in annual savings, according to Power Forward 3.0, a report by WWF, Ceres, Calvert Research & Management and CDP.

"We're not talking about anecdotal information anymore," Marty Spitzer, a WWF senior director of climate and renewable energy in Washington, said in an interview. "We're talking about large, large savings."

Potential savings and sustainability goals prompted corporations to buy almost 3.7 gigawatts of power generated by clean-energy projects in 2015, and another 2.5 gigawatts last year, almost all from wind and solar, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Technology companies are among the biggest buyers of clean energy. Alphabet Inc.'s Google expects to be powered entirely by clean energy this year. In January, Apple Inc. agreed to buy the output from a proposed 200-megawatt solar farm in Nevada to help power a data center in Reno, Nevada. And Salesforce.com Inc., the San Francisco-based business software company, this month said it has reached net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions.

But it's no longer just tech companies. About 63 percent of Fortune 100 companies have clean-energy targets, according to the report. Such targets include commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and increase energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The 190 Fortune 500 companies reported emission reductions equivalent to mothballing 45 coal-fired power plants for a year, according to the report. It also found that 23 of Fortune 500 companies have 100 percent renewable-energy targets.

Quote
Electric vehicles to cost the same as conventional cars by 2018

Alan Tovey, industry editor
19 MAY 2017 • 6:25PM
The cost of owning an electric car will fall to the same level as petrol-powered vehicles next year, according to bold new analysis from UBS which will send shockwaves through the automobile industry.

Experts from the investment bank's "evidence lab" made the prediction after tearing apart one of the current generation of electric cars to examine the economics of electric vehicles (EVs).

They found that costs of producing EVs were far lower than previously thought but there is still great potential to make further savings, driving down the price of electric cars.

As a result, UBS forecasts that the "total cost of consumer ownership can reach parity with combustion engines from 2018", with this likely to happen in Europe first.

"This will create an inflexion point for demand," the analysts said. "We raise our 2025 forecast for EV sales by ~50pc to 14.2m -  14pc of global car sales."

If the prediction comes to pass, traditional car industry giants could face ruin. Germany's Volkswagen Group - the world's biggest car company - is racing to catch up with rivals' investment levels in electric drivetrains, the components which deliver the power into the wheels, having largely ignored the technology in the past.

UBS's research was to help understand what it called the "most disruptive car category since the Model T Ford". The findings are based on its deconstruction of a Chevy Bolt, which it considered to be "the world's first mass-market EV, with a range of more than 200 miles".

The 2017 car - which cost $37,000 - was taken apart piece by piece and the parts analysed. UBS said that the Bolt's electric drive was $4,600 cheaper to produce than thought, "with much cost reduction potential left".

"We estimate that GM (which produces the Bolt) loses $7,400 in earnings before interest, and tax on every Bolt sold today, mainly due to a lack of scale."

Tesla's highly anticipated Model 3 - another small electric vehicle - is expected to lose billionaire Elon Musk's company $2,800 per car for the base version, according to UBS, but Tesla will break even at an average selling price of $41,000.

The bank predicts this will be achieved as customers opt for higher specification vehicles, making electric cars a viable business proposition, with upmarket EVs likely to be more profitable than mid-range versions.

"Once total cost of ownership parity is reached, mass-brand EVs should also turn profitable," UBS said.

Although the costs of EVs and current cars will be the same for motorists by 2018, manufacturers will not reach parity until 2023, when they will make 5pc margins on EVs - about equal to the profit on current vehicles.

EVs matching the cost of conventionally fuelled cars sooner than expected will send a seismic shock throughout the sector, from manufacturers right down through their supply chains, with UBS warning "the 'time to get ready' and win in the space shrinks".

It also warns that the aftermarket for replacement parts could be radically disrupted because electric drivetrains suffer less wear than traditional engines.

"Our detailed analysis of moving and wearing parts has shown that the highly lucrative spare parts business should shrink by ~60pc in the end-game of a 100pc EV world, which is decades away," UBS said.

It also forecast tech companies grabbing a bigger slice of the industry, with the deconstruction of the Bolt revealing that its electronics content was $4,000 higher than in an internal combustion engines, excluding the battery.

Professor David Bailey, car industry expert at Aston University, said: "If this really is the moment that the car industry reaches parity then the inflexion point is far earlier than anyone was expecting."

Ian Fletcher, principal automotive analyst at  IHS Markit, added: "We are not going to see the death of diesel or petrol anytime soon but manufacturers are weighing up the investment cost of traditional engines against electric, as well as the levies they face over the emissions of their fleets."

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 28, 2017, 02:13:33 AM
Now if only they could influence the current administration into having a sane policy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/biggest-u-s-companies-setting-more-renewable-energy-targets

Quote
China And India On Aggressive Electric Vehicle Push
By Nick Cunningham (http://oilprice.com/contributors/Nick-Cunningham) - May 14, 2017, 5:00 PM CDT  (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.oilprice.com%2Fa%2Fimg%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F718x300%2F14b148dab60b8aa7b00c325de9eda6e2.jpg&hash=5afb7f5a8cc8a18acdf5a6e1aa5d8af7116f10b8)
China and India are rolling out plans to dramatically accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), initiatives that have prompted the IEA to take notice and promise a review its long-term oil demand forecast.

In last year's World Energy Outlook, the IEA projected that electric vehicles would grow rapidly over time, but still not fast enough to upend the oil market. The Paris-based energy agency said that it expected to see 30 million EVs on the roads by 2025 and 150 million by 2040, up from just 1.3 million as of 2015. But still, even that large number would only eat into 1.3 million barrels of oil demand per day (mb/d) by 2040, only marginally impacting demand and prices decades from now.

To be sure, other analysts and agencies have more aggressive figures, but the IEA often sets the tone for long-term forecasts. That is why it is important that the IEA has promised a deeper review of its assumptions in its 2017 World Energy Outlook, to be released in November.

The changes could be significant because a growing number of countries are stepping up their policy initiatives to support EV adoption. The two most important are China and India, two countries that the IEA itself has said will make up the bulk of oil demand growth going forward. For example, by 2040, the IEA expects global oil demand to grow by 11 mb/d. But China accounts for 4.1 mb/d of demand growth over that timeframe and India adds 6 mb/d. There are other regions in the world that will see demand grow substantially, but the industrialized world will see steep losses. To keep things simple, China and India are the two most important countries when trying to gauge long-term oil demand growth. "The choices made by China and India are obviously most relevant for the possible future peak in passenger car oil demand," the IEA said (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-demand-iea-exclusive-idUSKBN18809U).

But those two countries are also in the midst of formulating some aggressive EV policies. Both pay an enormous price tag for imported oil and also suffer from horrific air pollution in many of their cities. EVs, in that sense, offer solutions to economic, national security, environmental and public health problems.

China said last month that it would seek to have at least one-fifth of its annual auto sales to come from EVs by 2025. That would mean some 7 million EV sales annually in China in less than a decade.

However, that plan looks modest when compared to what India wants to achieve. A new policy proposal from a government-run think-tank in India says that India should move to 100 percent EV sales by 2032. Under this scenario, no gasoline or diesel-fueled cars would be sold in India after that date.

The IEA was essentially left breathless by that plan, calling it "ambitious." Indeed, that scenario would require 10 million EVs sold annually in India by the end of the next decade, essentially ten times the number of total vehicles on the road in 2015.

Although much remains to be seen, "it is a good step that will help India to be among the global leaders in deploying a technology that is crucial to temper increasing oil import needs, local air pollution in cities, and limit CO2 emissions," the IEA said (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-11/india-s-2030-all-electric-car-target-seen-ambitious-by-iea?utm_content=energy&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-energy) in an emailed response to Bloomberg.

For India, the rapid transition to electrification of its auto fleet could yield $60 billion (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-india-autos-policy-idUKKBN1880H3) in savings between now and 2030, the government report said. To achieve the goal it would require limiting registration for gasoline and diesel cars, and it would also hinge on public subsidies for EVs and charging stations.

The proposed changes in China and India are only a few, if the most important, examples of a worldwide trend towards EVs that is just getting underway. France's new President Emmanuel Macron said (https://www.autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/new-french-president-macron-aims-last-fossil-fuel-cars-be-sold-2040) that by 2040 he hopes sales of gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles will be entirely phased out. Norway hopes to hit that threshold as soon as 2025 (https://thinkprogress.org/norway-aims-to-end-sales-of-fuel-burning-car-by-2025-as-ev-market-soars-edeac854f1e).

There is a great deal of uncertainty in these targets, to say the least. Not every, or even most, of the government objectives will be reached. But it isn't the specific numbers or dates that are important, but the directional change. EV adoption is accelerating and will likely to continue to accelerate, often in a non-linear fashion. That suggests that the IEA is indeed quite conservative in its prediction that only 1.3 mb/d of oil demand will be erased by 2040 because of EVs.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

Quote
Tesla's deliveries are still tracking close to Ford's Model T revolution (https://electrek.co/2017/05/24/tesla-vs-fords-model-t-revolution/)
Fred Lambert  (https://electrek.co/author/fredericclambert/)

- May. 24th 2017 11:44 am ET
@FredericLambert (https://twitter.com/FredericLambert)

Ford's Model T is credited for creating a transportation revolution by making the first affordable and truly mass-produced car.

Tesla is trying to do the same thing with electric cars, which make for an interesting comparison to track their respective progression.

Ford really started to make a difference when Model T production started to reach high volumes. In the 1920s, they reached an insane production rate of over 1 million units per year.

But like anything else, that took a while to achieve.

They started producing the car in late 1908, but they only reached an annual production rate of over 100,000 units 5 years into production.

Surprisingly, Tesla's deliveries have been tracking close to Ford's Model T deliveries. Visual Capitalist (http://www.visualcapitalist.com/electric-vehicles-poised-model-t/?utm_content=buffer6fb45&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer) made an interesting chart showing the comparison: (https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/tesla-vs-model-t.png?w=2000&h=598)

Tesla has been tracking ahead of Model T if you track it from the start of Model S production.

2017 will be a decisive year since Tesla is on track to deliver between 90,000 and 100,000 Model S and X, but it needs to deliver 170,000 vehicles to keep tracking the Model T.

As we previously reported based on Tesla's part orders, the company would need perfect production execution in order to deliver 80,000 Model 3s in 2017 (https://electrek.co/2017/02/27/tesla-model-3-perfect-execution-production-2017/).

Therefore, there's still a possibility for Tesla to keep track in 2017, but it's almost impossible. The automaker has a better shot in 2018, which will be the Model 3's first full year of production.

Visual Capitalist makes an interesting link between the Model T's impact on US road infrastructure and the possible impact of Tesla's growing fleet of EVs:

"Ford's assembly line and uncomplicated design allowed for cheaper pricing, which helped Ford sales to take off. With many new Model Ts hitting the road, the United States government was able to generate enough revenue from gasoline taxes to enable the sustainable development of roads in the United States."

They suggest that it could have a similar impact on the US' electric vehicle charging infrastructure:
(https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/tesla-vs-modelt-roadmap.gif) (https://i1.wp.com/electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/chargingstations-1.jpg?w=1200&h=&crop&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)

Tesla recently announced an important expansion of Supercharger network in order to support the arrival of the Model 3 and its growing fleet of Model S and Model X vehicles.

The timing is also interesting since VW will also have to deploy an impressive number of charging station through its DieselGate settlements. The plan for California includes installing ultra-fast 320 kW chargers, and the plan for the whole country includes a 'nationwide 150 kW+ fast charging network'.

Those networks being deployed around the same time as the Model 3 will likely create a similar growth model as the Model T and the US road expansion. In other words, those next few years could significantly change the auto industry in the US.

Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2017, 06:42:19 PM
Sigh

QuoteTesla's highly anticipated Model 3 - another small electric vehicle - is expected to lose billionaire Elon Musk's company $2,800 per car for the base version, according to UBS, but Tesla will break even at an average selling price of $41,000.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2017, 07:30:08 PM
I'm not feeling it either.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2017, 08:39:27 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2017, 07:30:08 PM
I'm not feeling it either.

How individuals feel is irrelevant.

All that matters is the facts and the stats.

That's why this thread was made. To shit all over Mono's luddite sympathies with cold hard facts and reality has cooperated beyond my wildest dreams.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2017, 09:01:29 PM
You'd want a Patriot Power solar unit. Get ready for the end of days. Comes with a bug out bag!

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 24, 2017, 08:39:27 PM
All that matters is the facts and the stats.

Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2017, 02:55:35 AM
How is the electricity cars in the US use produced?

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2017, 09:01:29 PM
You'd want a Patriot Power solar unit. Get ready for the end of days. Comes with a bug out bag!

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2017, 11:27:11 AM
I guess you would get less range b/c of running the heater etc. and just generally lower battery performance.  But it still functions.

QuoteI made a graph showing the historic track record of the IEA in predicting solar: reality steeply increasing but IEA is having none of it.

Quotewind's watershed moment

Quote

Arizona utility signs game-changing deal cutting solar power prices in half

Tucson Electric Power to buy new solar power at under 3 cents per kWh, a "historically low price."

Remarkable drops in the cost of solar and wind power have effectively turned the global power market upside down in recent years.

We've seen prices for new solar farms below 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) in other countries for over a year now, but before this week, not in the U.S. That changed on Monday when Tucson Electric Power (TEP), an Arizona utility company, announced that it had reached an agreement to buy solar power at the same game-changing price.

TEP says that this is a "historically low price" for a 100-megawatt system capable of powering 21,000 homes — and that the sub-3-cents price is "less than half as much as it agreed to pay under similar contracts in recent years."

For context, the average U.S. residential price for electricity is nearly 13 cents per kwh, and the average commercial price is 10.5 cents.


NextEra Energy Resources will build and operate the system, which also includes "a long duration battery storage system" (whose price is not included in the 3 cents/kwh). Also worth noting: The sub-3-cents contracts that have been signed in other countries such as Chile, Dubai, and Mexico are unsubsidized, whereas U.S. prices include the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit.

PV Magazine reports "this is the lowest price" they've seen for solar yet in this country. And Bloomberg New Energy Finance chair Michael Liebreich explained last month that thanks to recent price drops, "unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world — sometimes by a factor of two."

The TEP contract is one more sign that the renewable revolution is unstoppable.

QuoteTucson Electric Power

QuoteApplication submitted: 5/8/17 12:39 PM
Last updated: 5/9/17 10:29 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 31, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
You don't want to live in Tucson.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2017, 06:01:43 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 31, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
You don't want to live in Tucson.

No I don't, but I do want to resume my career before dersfetus has a chance to watch me die.

Besides, it's a dry heat.

Quote from: HVC on May 31, 2017, 06:03:29 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2017, 06:01:43 PM
Besides, it's a dry heat.

So is an oven.

QuoteFrom coal to solar, India's energy landscape is almost too hard to keep up with

By

Krutika Pathi  May 28, 2017 Quartz india

In 2010, India was experiencing a massive boost in coal power—but not everyone was benefitting.

Those in the Siddhi community, spread across the foothills of the Western Ghats, were almost entirely left in the literal dark. Francis Wilson relied entirely on kerosene lamps since the power grid didn't cover his area. Mohan Appu had no direct connection to electricity because he had no documents to prove ownership of the house he had lived in for years. Residents of this rural community would have to travel almost 13 miles to charge a mobile phone.

This scenario, which plays out often across pockets of rural areas in the country, reflects the curious situation of India's energy landscape. For the past two years, there's been an overabundance of coal power, even though 240 million people in India still have little to no access to electricity. Meanwhile, over the last five months, the price of renewable energy has plummeted so low that analysts have hailed it as both "record-breaking" and "unsustainable" in the same breath. In fact, the pace of change in the country's energy infrastructure has been so swift that even researchers are scrambling to keep a steady pulse on a constantly developing beat.


As China slowly cut down on its own coal infrastructure, the International Energy Agency in 2015 projected India to be the next coal center in the near future. It stated that "half of the net increase in coal-fired generation capacity worldwide [through 2040] occurs in India." Nearly a year later, in July 2016, the non-profit CoalSwarm put out a report that found 370 proposals for coal plants in the works across the country.

The findings revealed a pretty explosive conclusion: that India's outsized plans for coal energy would wipe out climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Merely a few months after the report, the researchers at CoalSwarm were surprised by a new twist. In December 2016, the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) laid out an electricity plan that said no new coal plants, beyond those already under construction, are needed for at least the next decade. The CEA also put forth new renewable energy goals—a production of 275 gigawatts (GW) generated from solar, wind, and hydro by 2027.

This means that the majority of the plants that CoalSwarm tracked are now going to be shelved. It's also a show of India's push towards reforming its energy infrastructure: the country added more renewable power than thermal in the 2016 fiscal year. "It was hard to keep up," says Christine Shearer, a senior researcher at CoalSwarm and lead author of the report. "The country is supposed to be at the heart of coal plant growth, but it's interesting to see the tide go against what we often hear about China and India—that they're going to keep building coal plants—when actually, they're both stalling production."

The glut of power doesn't mean that every corner of the country is electrified—rather, it gestures strongly towards inertia, uneven distribution, and redundancy. "There are many coal plants which aren't functioning at full capacity," says Ashish Fernandes, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace. This under-utilisation, he points out, has led to an abundance of stale power contained inside state-owned distribution companies.

Another reason for the overabundance: rural areas that lack electricity can't seem to afford the price of it. The cost can range from around Rs120 ($1.86) to Rs500 ($7.75) per month for domestic utilities, depending on the state. "If [residents] can't afford the power, it doesn't matter what fuel they use," says Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). "You've got to solve energy poverty, education, and employment to address that problem," he adds. "You can't keep building expensive coal-fired power plants that pollute the country and think there's going to be demand—[some residents] just can't afford it." Even when data shows an area as having electricity, it may not mean much, Fernandes says. "We need to look at individual households that have power. According to the government data, if you have one building or streetlight in a rural area that has power, the entire town is considered to be connected," he adds.

A report by Greenpeace published in October 2016 identified 65GW of coal power stations under construction in India and an additional 176GW of projects at various stages of obtaining permissions. The report forecast that 94% of the capacity being built would not be needed by 2022, representing a waste of $49 billion in investments. This could partly explain why a $150 million coal plant in the state of Maharashtra is currently sitting idle, with a lack of demand from power generators. And it could also explain why another state in India, Gujarat, has walked away from a $4 billion coal plant of 4000 megawatts this month. "There is no financial investment to fund coal in the Indian market because they're simply not competitive against solar energy prices right now," says Buckley.

As prospects for India's coal sector are falling, so is the price of renewable energy. In turn, the country's future outlook, if all goes accordingly, is pretty good news for the planet. India first set a record-low price in February this year when a kilowatt-hour of solar energy was selling at Rs2.97 ($0.046). This month, the country hit another record low—the price of solar dropped 12% further, currently selling at Rs2.62 ($0.041) per kilowatt-hour. "To spell it out, new solar is 15% cheaper than existing domestic coal.[/b] No one, anywhere in the world, was expecting solar to get that cheap for at least a decade," Buckley says, "and India just got there this year." It's a marked shift for India—which, in a matter of months, went from potentially thwarting global climate goals to possibly saving them.

The news of falling solar prices in India, and the country's recent (but significant) efforts to divest from coal as the fundamental energy source, stands in contrast to the current scenario in the US. Analysts fear that president Trump's "America First Energy Plan" will put the country behind China and India in the push to reinvigorate renewable solutions. "What gives me hope is that at a time when Trump is busy trying to destroy the Paris Agreement, the two most important countries in the world for the agreement are China and India," says Buckley.

According to a study released last week by the Climate Action Tracker, India and China are on pace to "overachieve" their climate goals by 2030. While Trump has taken recent action to revitalise the coal industry, the report finds that China and India's recent aggressive stances on carbon emissions "significantly outweigh" America's lack of clean energy initiatives. Ultimately, Buckley points out that it might come down to those two countries taking the lead. "If Trump backs out of the Paris Agreement, which [is] a very likely scenario, he would be ceding America's leadership in energy markets to China and India," Buckley says.

Out of the world's top three carbon transmitters, the US is the only one at risk of missing its target goal, the Climate Action Tracker report concludes. An energy blueprint released this week by the Indian government predicts that 57% of total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027—exceeding the Paris Agreement's target of 40% by 2030. Currently, almost 33% of the country's total energy comes from non-fossil fuel, which makes the Paris target relatively unambitious—it looks like India is almost three-and-a-half years ahead of schedule.

The research is undoubtedly positive and the numbers trumpet a new standard being set by two unlikely countries. But in terms of large-scale implementation, neither solar nor coal are easy options in India. For solar energy to be reliable and widespread, the country would need to build grid infrastructure on an unprecedented scale. The dwindling prices of non-fossil fuel energy is encouraging, and the slow-but-steady withdrawal from coal is optimistic, but is it enough to plug the gaps? Fernandes doesn't think so. "The biggest threats to renewable expansion are the distribution companies," he says, adding that this is the root of the problem. "Unless the distribution model is overhauled, the same issues will be transferred."

Solutions like off-grid solar panels are one kind of sustainable technology that could address the distribution problem, says Harish Hande, co-founder of SELCO, an enterprise that introduced off-grid solar energy in the Siddhi community in 2010. Within a year, 100 homes in the area were connected to power in the Western Ghats region. SELCO has been nationally awarded for its energy work in under-served households and areas—but, as Hande points out, a long-standing solution has to go beyond the mere mechanics of the supply chain. "It's much larger than providing electricity," he says, "and there have to be enough public-private partnerships that cross over education, health, and the bigger ecosystem for sustainable energy services to become more accessible."

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2017, 08:58:30 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2017, 11:27:11 AM
I guess you would get less range b/c of running the heater etc. and just generally lower battery performance.  But it still functions.

I bought my electric car earlier in the year and now that it is warming up I have noticed an increase in max range from 120 Km to more like 150.  Under ideal conditions the max is supposed to be 170 ish  Quebec has colder winters so the difference will be greater.

Quote
"If Trump backs out of the Paris Agreement, which [is] a very likely scenario, he would be ceding America's leadership in energy markets to China and India,"

QuoteCalifornia plan for 100% renewable energy by 2045 clears key hurdle

California will receive all of its power from renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, by 2045 under legislation that passed the state Senate on Wednesday.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) touted his bill, Senate Bill 100, as the most ambitious program in the world.

"Clean energy is the future," De León said. "SB 100 ensures that California leads into the future."

The measure would also speed up the state's goal of reaching 50% renewable energy, changing the deadline from 2030 to 2026.

SB 100 passed over objections from Republican senators. Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) criticized the measure as government getting ahead of technological capacity.

"What if we can't make that mandate that we're putting into law today?" Stone said. "What it's going to do is drive up electricity bills for our businesses."

De León's bill now moves to the Assembly.

Quote from: celedhring on June 02, 2017, 07:43:08 AM
Is that even realistic?  :huh:

Ambitious goal, but seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Quote from: Zanza on June 02, 2017, 07:52:54 AM
Pff, Americans have brought a man to the moon and back in less than a decade. This is just a question of political will and some ingenuity.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2017, 11:24:17 AM
What apples are you referring to Timmy?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2017, 11:24:17 AM
What apples are you referring to Timmy?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2017, 07:32:47 AM
How do ya' like them apples Yi.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-plan-for-100-renewable-1496258464-htmlstory.html

QuoteCalifornia plan for 100% renewable energy by 2045 clears key hurdle

California will receive all of its power from renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, by 2045 under legislation that passed the state Senate on Wednesday.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) touted his bill, Senate Bill 100, as the most ambitious program in the world.

"Clean energy is the future," De León said. "SB 100 ensures that California leads into the future."

The measure would also speed up the state's goal of reaching 50% renewable energy, changing the deadline from 2030 to 2026.

SB 100 passed over objections from Republican senators. Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) criticized the measure as government getting ahead of technological capacity.

"What if we can't make that mandate that we're putting into law today?" Stone said. "What it's going to do is drive up electricity bills for our businesses."

De León's bill now moves to the Assembly.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 02, 2017, 11:39:37 AM
Yi, don't be sour grapes.

Quote from: celedhring on June 02, 2017, 07:43:08 AM
Is that even realistic?  :huh:

Ambitious goal, but seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 02, 2017, 07:32:47 AM
How do ya' like them apples Yi.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-plan-for-100-renewable-1496258464-htmlstory.html

QuoteCalifornia plan for 100% renewable energy by 2045 clears key hurdle

California will receive all of its power from renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, by 2045 under legislation that passed the state Senate on Wednesday.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) touted his bill, Senate Bill 100, as the most ambitious program in the world.

"Clean energy is the future," De León said. "SB 100 ensures that California leads into the future."

The measure would also speed up the state's goal of reaching 50% renewable energy, changing the deadline from 2030 to 2026.

SB 100 passed over objections from Republican senators. Sen. Jeff Stone (R-Temecula) criticized the measure as government getting ahead of technological capacity.

"What if we can't make that mandate that we're putting into law today?" Stone said. "What it's going to do is drive up electricity bills for our businesses."

De León's bill now moves to the Assembly.

Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2017, 01:10:25 PM
I thought that given the intermittent nature of pretty much all renewable energy sources, you literally couldn't hit 100% renewable.  Mass storage may eventually be the answer, but it doesn't exist yet.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 02, 2017, 01:20:47 PM
You can, however, declare victory whenever you like, since it's relatively easy to achieve 100% renewable in the right circumstances.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 02, 2017, 11:42:33 AM


is this the reason the state's cost of living is ridiculous and the state is deep in debt?

QuoteGlobal coal production plunged by the largest percentage on record in 2016 amid flat demand for energy and inroads by cleaner sources of power, the oil major BP reported Tuesday. Coal production worldwide fell by more than 6 percent as the black rock's share of world energy production fell to its lowest level since 2004, according to BP's annual Statistical Review of World Energy.

Slower economic growth in China and a move away from coal in North America and Europe dimmed the fuel's prospects, resulting in a second straight year of decline. Worldwide, coal's share of the world's energy consumption fell for the second year in a row, down 1.7 percent to 28.1 percent.

...

QuoteAccording to the Energy Information Administration's Electric Power Monthly, a bit more than 10 percent of all electricity generated in the US in March came from wind and solar power (including both distributed residential solar panels and utility-scale solar installations). That's a record number for the country, and it reflects continuing effort to install more renewable capacity across the nation.

The EIA shows that eight percent of total electricity generation that month came from wind, and the other two percent came from solar. The administration also predicts that wind and solar will contribute more than 10 percent of the total electricity produced in April, although numbers for that month aren't out yet.

Renewables have tended to hit records in spring and fall—often called shoulder seasons—because wind is plentiful and the northern hemisphere receives a more even amount of sunlight during those seasons than it does during winter. In addition, electricity consumers tend to use less during the shoulder seasons (mild weather means they're usually not running air conditioners or space heaters, for example). That means overall energy use is low and peak-demand fossil fuel-burning plants don't need to come online. All these factors together make it easy for renewable energy to shoulder a larger and larger share of the work.

Although solar electricity generation usually increases considerably in the summer, the EIA doesn't expect that increase to compensate for the reductions in spring and fall wind power this year.
In a separate study, GTM Research and the Energy Storage Association also found that stationary energy batteries have had a booming first quarter of 2017 as well. Batteries go hand in hand with intermittent resources like wind and solar because they can smooth out some of the times when those renewable sources can't provide electricity.

In the first quarter of 2017, a record 234 MWh of storage appear to have been installed around the US. The surge was partially caused by a mandate from California regulators that utilities in that state install batteries after a massive methane leak prompted the shutdown of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. Tesla, AES Energy Storage, and Ice Energy all completed contracts in the first quarter of 2017 pursuant to California's mandate.

However, the study suggested that this first quarter may be the largest for energy storage in 2017 because few additional storage projects are currently planned for later in the year.

For now, the EIA says the renewable energy number to beat is seven percent, which is the percentage of electricity that was renewably generated in the US throughout 2016. Last year, Texas accounted for the most wind on the US grid, with California trailing Texas in wind and almost making up the difference in solar.

"As a share of the state's total electricity generation, wind and solar output was highest in Iowa, where wind and solar made up 37 percent of electricity generation in 2016," the EIA wrote. Part of Iowa's high percentage of renewable energy has to do with the state's electricity needs being comparatively low. California and Hawaii are two states that have aggressive renewable goals, too. If we include geothermal, biomass, and small-scale hydroelectric power in addition to wind and solar, California sourced 27 percent of its energy from renewable sources last year, and Hawaii hit 26 percent.

QuoteChinese province runs on 100% renewables for 7 days

The Qinghai Province, located in Northwest China, has successfully run on 100 per cent renewable energy for seven continuous days, as part of a trial conducted by the State Grid Corporation of China.

The trial – which ran from 17 June to 23 June – saw the entire province generate all of its power needs with clean energy sources, including solar, wind and hydro power.

The trial in the Qinghai Province – which has a population of around 6 million people – was deigned to prove that fossil fuels will not be required in the future, according to local reports.

Quan Shenming, General Manager of Qinghai Electric Power Corporation, a subsidiary of State Grid Corporation, said: "Being the first trial of this kind in the country and a major step in the transformation of energy supply, it will be of great importance in promoting the use of clean energy in China in a sustainable and effective way."

Quan Shengming detailed that during the seven day period electricity use was 1.1 billion kilowatt hours (kWh), the equivalent of 535,000 tonnes of coal.

Hydro contributed as much as 72.3 per cent of the electricity, with new energy sources including wind and solar providing the balance, said Han Ti, Vice General Manager.

Qinghai has ample resources for solar and hydro power generation.

As of May 2017, Qinghai's power grid had a total installed capacity of 23.4 million kW, around 82.8 per cent of which came from solar, wind and hydro power.

According to the provincial 13th Five-Year Plan, the Qinghai Province plans to expand its solar and wind capacity to 35 million kW by 2020 and supply 110 billion kWh of clean electricity every year to central and eastern parts of China, Xinhua News said.

Han said: "Clean energy is the ultimate way. We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel, improve our energy structure, and reduce carbon emissions."

China plans to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($366 billion) in renewable energy technologies by 2020, creating more than 13 million jobs, according to the National Energy Administration (NEA).

In the first quarter of 2017, China installed an impressive 7.21 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity.

Total installed solar capacity now stands at around 85 GW – according to the NEA.

Quote from: sbr on June 26, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Hydro contributed as much as 72.3 per cent of the electricity, with new energy sources including wind and solar providing the balance, said Han Ti, Vice General Manager.

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 10:22:34 AM
A "mild hybrid" is much closer to a conventional combustion engine than it is to a true electric car. Nice announcement, but that's not yet the end of the combustion engine.


Tesla started the production of their new model recently. Their ramp up curve is fairly slow, but will be interesting to see if they can reach the 20,000 cars per month in December. Apparently the car only has two options: color and wheel size. That's an interesting approach when most other car companies go towards individualization of the vehicles with very small lot sizes, often lot size of one built to the customer's specific order.

Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2017, 10:32:34 AM
Maybe he's not trying to kill off  the ICE, but rather the false totem of individualism with regard to mass transport by car?  :D

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 10:45:55 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2017, 10:32:34 AM
Maybe he's not trying to kill off  the ICE, but rather the false totem of individualism with regard to mass transport by car?  :D

Maybe. Tesla said that they want to make big advances in manufacturing ("the machine that builds the machine") and moving away from individualized cars to more standardized cars would certainly change the trend the industry has been going for decades now. If consumers accept the sparse interior in exchange for self-driving capability and a touchscreen with a modern entertainment system are now more important features than personalized interiors etc. that would be fairly disruptive for the car industry. More than the electric powertrain as that has already been internalized into the strategies of every car maker.

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 10:22:34 AMTesla started the production of their new model recently. Their ramp up curve is fairly slow, but will be interesting to see if they can reach the 20,000 cars per month in December. Apparently the car only has two options: color and wheel size. That's an interesting approach when most other car companies go towards individualization of the vehicles with very small lot sizes, often lot size of one built to the customer's specific order.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2017, 02:20:32 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Ride a bike or the public bus system

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 10:45:55 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2017, 10:32:34 AM
Maybe he's not trying to kill off  the ICE, but rather the false totem of individualism with regard to mass transport by car?  :D

Maybe. Tesla said that they want to make big advances in manufacturing ("the machine that builds the machine") and moving away from individualized cars to more standardized cars would certainly change the trend the industry has been going for decades now. If consumers accept the sparse interior in exchange for self-driving capability and a touchscreen with a modern entertainment system are now more important features than personalized interiors etc. that would be fairly disruptive for the car industry. More than the electric powertrain as that has already been internalized into the strategies of every car maker.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2017, 02:22:27 PM
Pedaled by an oriental.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2017, 02:03:03 PM
I am not so sure the self driving car is going to be successful for individuals.  It will likely have a big impact on the transport industry but I am not sure individual drivers will find the self driving tech very appealing.  Also, the theory that people will use uber ordered self driving cars rather than purchase their own cars is, I think, unlikely.  Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas - but people still like to have their own vehicles.

As for design, I think that will be determined by the engineering necessary to obtain greater range.

Quote from: Iormlund link=topic=13966.msg1091795#msg1091795

Individualization regarding cosmetics, maybe. Almost everything else is being harmonized as much as possible.

QuoteI'm the manufacturing engineer responsible for certain component for a German OEM. They are pushing hard for a global supply chain. They chose a design, and every component manufacturer has to adhere to this design, worldwide. Identical or virtually indistinguishable products are present anywhere from low tier platforms to high end vehicles. At least 4 Tier 1s are producing the same parts, which is a complete pain in the ass for us. Every change request is a fucking nightmare, as it has to be agreed upon and tested by all parts involved (meaning FEA, crash tests, etc).

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 11:59:22 PM

QuoteI'm the manufacturing engineer responsible for certain component for a German OEM. They are pushing hard for a global supply chain. They chose a design, and every component manufacturer has to adhere to this design, worldwide. Identical or virtually indistinguishable products are present anywhere from low tier platforms to high end vehicles. At least 4 Tier 1s are producing the same parts, which is a complete pain in the ass for us. Every change request is a fucking nightmare, as it has to be agreed upon and tested by all parts involved (meaning FEA, crash tests, etc).

Four suppliers for one part is rather unusual as far as I can tell unless the part is commodity and not specifically designed. Otherwise tooling seems prohibitively expensive. Or are the tools where you work not owned by the OEM?

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 11:45:16 PM
I think self-driving cars for individuals will come and be popular.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 10, 2017, 06:09:59 AM

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 11:45:16 PM
I think self-driving cars for individuals will come and be popular.

So many people are going to die  :lol:

Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2017, 06:45:25 AM
Computers will soon be better drivers than humans.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2017, 11:45:16 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2017, 02:03:03 PM
I am not so sure the self driving car is going to be successful for individuals.  It will likely have a big impact on the transport industry but I am not sure individual drivers will find the self driving tech very appealing.  Also, the theory that people will use uber ordered self driving cars rather than purchase their own cars is, I think, unlikely.  Not purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas - but people still like to have their own vehicles.

As for design, I think that will be determined by the engineering necessary to obtain greater range.

I think self-driving cars for individuals will come and be popular. Most driving is just a hassle to get from A to B.
As far as sharing cars is concerned, your hometown of Vancouver is probably the world capital of car sharing. I think it will increase with driverless cars as that will allow better network distribution for better availability. But a lot of people like to have their personal stuff (child seats etc.) in their car and there is still a huge peak at rush hour and that can't be covered by fleets that need constant usage.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2017, 08:06:12 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2017, 08:11:12 AM
It is the experience in Vancouver that makes me think that an Uber style driverless car fleet is impractical.  The wait time for car share is pretty long. One needs to plan a trip well in advance.  To make it more practical there would have to be a lot more cars on the road at a time when our infrastructure is decreasing space for cars to push people to transit and bikes.

QuoteDriverless cars will likely replace taxi fleets but I don't think they will replace individual cars on a large scale.

Quote from: dps on July 10, 2017, 09:26:44 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2017, 08:06:12 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Not every urban area is Manhattan, you know. 

Maybe things are different in Canada, but in most urban areas in the US, the main downside to owning a car is the upfront purchase price.  Lots of unban poor simply can't come up with the down payment for a new car or a late-model used car, or the cash price for an older used car.  They would be better off if they could, because in the long run, it's much cheaper than taking a taxi.  In my experience, you're not going to take a taxi even for a short distance for less than $20, so even if you just go to work and back, that's $40 a day.   That's $800 a month just to get to work and back (assuming a 5-day work week).  The monthly cost to my mom for owning her car (a Nissan Altima originally purchased when it was a 1 year old used car) is about $650 a month--and she got a bad deal on it.  That's $150 a month less than taking a taxi, even if you go nowhere but to work with the taxi (and using the bare minimum of what a taxi would cost--in practice, it's likely to be more than $20 a trip), and certainly one could find a much cheaper car than a 1 year old Altima.

Now, if you compare the cost of owning a car to the cost of taking the bus, it's a different story.  But OTOH, there's also an opportunity cost to taking the bus--buses have set routes and schedules, while you can take your car almost anywhere at any time you choose.

And BTW, your post shows some bias.  Poor people don't own condos--they rent apartments.  If you can afford to buy a condo, you can afford to buy a car.

Vancouver is a special case for Canada.  It's not a very large place (geographically speaking) and space is at a premium.  Lots of foreigners are buying properties, though now with Toronto and Vancouver new rules, they are flocking to Montreal, wich leads to a price increase there too.

About condos, I'm not too sure.  It really depends on where you live in Montreal.  If you live downtown, condos or city houses (duplex, triplex) are more popular, but if you live on the side, it's often a rent.  I don't think it's that different from the US, it's just that Vancouver's situation is probably close to Manhattan.

Also, gaz prices are twice that of the US due to taxes.  And everything you buy, including a car, is slammed with a 15% taxes.  And interests paid on mortgage is not deductible from your taxable income.  And we pay twice as much income taxes.

All these factored in, for a city like Vancouver, I can see why using a taxi for infrequent movement is cheaper than buying a car.

Quote from: viper37 on July 10, 2017, 12:58:04 PM
Vancouver is a special case for Canada.  It's not a very large place (geographically speaking) and space is at a premium.  Lots of foreigners are buying properties, though now with Toronto and Vancouver new rules, they are flocking to Montreal, wich leads to a price increase there too.

About condos, I'm not too sure.  It really depends on where you live in Montreal.  If you live downtown, condos or city houses (duplex, triplex) are more popular, but if you live on the side, it's often a rent.  I don't think it's that different from the US, it's just that Vancouver's situation is probably close to Manhattan.

Also, gaz prices are twice that of the US due to taxes.  And everything you buy, including a car, is slammed with a 15% taxes.  And interests paid on mortgage is not deductible from your taxable income.  And we pay twice as much income taxes.

All these factored in, for a city like Vancouver, I can see why using a taxi for infrequent movement is cheaper than buying a car.

Quote from: dps on July 10, 2017, 09:26:44 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2017, 08:06:12 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 09, 2017, 02:14:03 PM

QuoteNot purchasing a car and simply ordering a taxi has always been less costly - at least in urban areas -

You've heard of used cars, right?

Gas, parking fees, insurance - you have heard of these things right? 

Remember, we are talking about an urban area here.  The price of a car is the least of your concerns.  Just buying a parking spot at your condo is many multiples the cost of a new car.  So even if you buy a very cheap car the cost of a taxi is going to be much less.

Not every urban area is Manhattan, you know. 

Maybe things are different in Canada, but in most urban areas in the US, the main downside to owning a car is the upfront purchase price.  Lots of unban poor simply can't come up with the down payment for a new car or a late-model used car, or the cash price for an older used car.  They would be better off if they could, because in the long run, it's much cheaper than taking a taxi.  In my experience, you're not going to take a taxi even for a short distance for less than $20, so even if you just go to work and back, that's $40 a day.   That's $800 a month just to get to work and back (assuming a 5-day work week).  The monthly cost to my mom for owning her car (a Nissan Altima originally purchased when it was a 1 year old used car) is about $650 a month--and she got a bad deal on it.  That's $150 a month less than taking a taxi, even if you go nowhere but to work with the taxi (and using the bare minimum of what a taxi would cost--in practice, it's likely to be more than $20 a trip), and certainly one could find a much cheaper car than a 1 year old Altima.

Now, if you compare the cost of owning a car to the cost of taking the bus, it's a different story.  But OTOH, there's also an opportunity cost to taking the bus--buses have set routes and schedules, while you can take your car almost anywhere at any time you choose.

And BTW, your post shows some bias.  Poor people don't own condos--they rent apartments.  If you can afford to buy a condo, you can afford to buy a car.

Quote from: dps on July 10, 2017, 11:10:38 PM

I don't see what difference income tax rates and being able to deduct a mortgage or not would have on determining whether or not it's cheaper to own a car or take a taxi.

QuoteResearch analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he's stated he will.

"We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe," with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
"By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities' carbon emissions levels," they wrote. "For example, notwithstanding president Trump's stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020."

Globally, the price of solar panels has fallen 50% between 2016 and 2017, they write. And in countries with favorable wind conditions, the costs associated with wind power "can be as low as one-half to one-third that of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants." Innovations in wind-turbine design are allowing for ever-longer wind blades; that boost in efficiency will also increase power output from the wind sector, according to Morgan Stanley.

Even in Australia, where the political climate is hostile to renewables, Morgan Stanley sees hope in the slightly longer-term: "In Australia, we anticipate that by 2020, renewables will provide ~28% of grid-supplied energy, including over 60% in South Australia."

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2017, 09:34:03 AM
Withdrawing from the Paris accord was completely pointless as, like the article says, we were on course to exceed those levels anyway. But then the Paris Accord itself was pretty much pointless anyway.

Still I found it annoying Trump did something that pissed people off for no reason at all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2017, 08:11:12 AM
It is the experience in Vancouver that makes me think that an Uber style driverless car fleet is impractical.  The wait time for car share is pretty long. One needs to plan a trip well in advance.  To make it more practical there would have to be a lot more cars on the road at a time when our infrastructure is decreasing space for cars to push people to transit and bikes.

Driverless cars will likely replace taxi fleets but I don't think they will replace individual cars on a large scale.

Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2017, 11:35:40 AM
If you have a free floating fleet, i.e. not stations but cars that can you can enter and leave wherever you like, it should be able to self-balance by driving around empty. That should make wait times much shorter as the fleet can always have empty cars positione where demand is expected.

Quote from: Jacob on July 17, 2017, 12:51:58 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2017, 11:35:40 AM
If you have a free floating fleet, i.e. not stations but cars that can you can enter and leave wherever you like, it should be able to self-balance by driving around empty. That should make wait times much shorter as the fleet can always have empty cars positione where demand is expected.

We have both. The issues around the free floating fleets centre around the mass commutes. If you need a car in a residential neighbourhood on a workday morning, you better get out early. Similarly, if you need a car at the just-outside-the-centre train stations at the end of the workday you need to time it so you beat the rush.

Conversely, if you need a car from the just-outside-the-centre train station in the morning, you'll have plenty - or if you need one in a not too distant residential area after the day is done.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2017, 09:34:03 AM
Withdrawing from the Paris accord was completely pointless as, like the article says, we were on course to exceed those levels anyway. But then the Paris Accord itself was pretty much pointless anyway.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2017, 03:05:01 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2017, 09:34:03 AM
Withdrawing from the Paris accord was completely pointless as, like the article says, we were on course to exceed those levels anyway. But then the Paris Accord itself was pretty much pointless anyway.

It's pointless only if you think all that matters are concrete legally enforceable rules.  The Paris accords are about the governments of the world making a show of their rhetorical commitments.  It may be theater, but Trump is about theater over substance.  Pulling out has meaning to him, and diplomatically it has meaning to the Rest of the World.  So it matters because it matters.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
Why are British tree so comparatively bad?

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
Why are British tree so comparatively bad?

Quote from: Zanza on July 17, 2017, 02:33:13 PM
If the cars can go back to where there is demand on their own, you'll get much better coverage. Those peaks and missing cars in certain locations can then be countered.

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
Why are British tree so comparatively bad?

Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2017, 09:59:12 AM
About half of China had temperatures in excess of 60 degree Celsius (that's 140 degrees Fahrenheit).

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2017, 10:13:08 AM

Quote from: Jacob on July 24, 2017, 09:59:12 AM
About half of China had temperatures in excess of 60 degree Celsius (that's 140 degrees Fahrenheit).

Any link on that? Tried to search myself and old got info on an old heatwave with temps on metal surfaces in the 60s.

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2017, 12:02:32 PM
Ah gotcha. Not fun. I'd only questioned it because yeah I was like that's pretty darn hot!

Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2017, 02:22:57 PM
Why are British tree so comparatively bad?

Quote

Electric cars win? Britain to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2040

Kylie MacLellan and Guy Faulconbridge

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 in an attempt to reduce air pollution that could herald the end of over a century of reliance on the internal combustion engine.

Britain's step, which follows France, amounts to a victory for electric cars that if copied globally could hit the wealth of oil producers, as well as transform car industry jobs and one of the icons of 20th Century capitalism: the automobile itself.

The mayors of Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens have said they plan to ban diesel vehicles from city centers by 2025, while the French government also aims to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040.

The British government has been under pressure to take steps to reduce air pollution after losing legal cases brought by campaign groups. Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives had pledged to make "almost every car and van" zero-emission by 2050.

"There should be no new diesel or petrol vehicles by 2040," environment minister Michael Gove told BBC Radio. The ban would only apply to conventional rather than hybrid vehicles that have both an electric and combustion engine, Gove's ministry said.

There is a mountain to climb, however.

Electric cars currently account for less than 5 percent of new car registrations in Britain, with drivers concerned about the cost and limited availability of charging points and manufacturers worried about making expensive investments before the demand is there.

"We could undermine the UK's successful automotive sector if we don't allow enough time for the industry to adjust," warned Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Hawes said there were only 12,000 public charging points in Britain and new power infrastructure would be needed, as well as steps to ensure the power network could cope with large numbers of people seeking to charge vehicles at the same time.

The Future Is Electric?

While many automakers may find it hard to countenance the end of the combustion engine, some have embraced a future where electric vehicles, or perhaps even driverless ones, prevail.

This month, Volvo became the first major traditional automaker to set a date for phasing out vehicles powered solely by the internal combustion engine by saying all its car models launched after 2019 would be electric or hybrids.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 30, 2017, 07:55:28 PM
"There should be no new diesel or petrol vehicles by 2040," environment minister Michael Gove told BBC Radio. The ban would only apply to conventional rather than hybrid vehicles that have both an electric and combustion engine, Gove's ministry said.

QuoteHawes said there were only 12,000 public charging points in Britain and new power infrastructure would be needed, as well as steps to ensure the power network could cope with large numbers of people seeking to charge vehicles at the same time.

QuoteWhile many automakers may find it hard to countenance the end of the combustion engine, some have embraced a future where electric vehicles, or perhaps even driverless ones, prevail.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 31, 2017, 10:08:17 AM
A bunch of UBS analysts tore apart a Chevy Bolt and were surprised to find that the cost of the underlying components was considerably cheaper than they thought, with considerable opportunity for further cost reduction.  They also think going forward, electric will have an advantage in that powertrains are simpler and more reliable.   GM is still losing money on Bolt, but UBS concluded this was almost entirely due to lack of sufficient scale.  The report says total cost of ownership will reach parity at 2018 - an "inflection point" - and that profitability on the manufacturer side will kick in by 2023.

Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2017, 11:44:53 AM
12,000 charging points for a fleet of 36.7 million vehicles shows that huge investments in infrastructure are necessary to make electric cars viable for everybody. Will be interesting if investors see that as a profitable enough business to invest on the necessary scale. Also needs massive amounts of roadwork to build charging point along the roadsides.

Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2017, 07:04:51 AM

Quote from: Zanza on July 31, 2017, 11:44:53 AM
12,000 charging points for a fleet of 36.7 million vehicles shows that huge investments in infrastructure are necessary to make electric cars viable for everybody. Will be interesting if investors see that as a profitable enough business to invest on the necessary scale. Also needs massive amounts of roadwork to build charging point along the roadsides.

isn't it in Germany where some highways were converted to recharge electric cars as they drive? Or was it only a plan for the future?

Quote from: Tamas on August 07, 2017, 09:33:38 AM
What about the batteries and the electricity necessary for electric cars? sure they are not an issue now when its an upper middle class trendy thing, but when all cars will have them? Those acid-laden batteries and all that extra electricity will have to be produced somewhere.

Quote from: Tamas on August 07, 2017, 09:33:38 AM
What about the batteries and the electricity necessary for electric cars? sure they are not an issue now when its an upper middle class trendy thing, but when all cars will have them? Those acid-laden batteries and all that extra electricity will have to be produced somewhere.

Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2017, 07:04:51 AM

isn't it in Germany where some highways were converted to recharge electric cars as they drive?  Or was it only a plan for the future?

Quote from: Tamas on August 07, 2017, 09:33:38 AM
What about the batteries and the electricity necessary for electric cars? sure they are not an issue now when its an upper middle class trendy thing, but when all cars will have them? Those acid-laden batteries and all that extra electricity will have to be produced somewhere.

Quote from: Tamas on August 07, 2017, 09:33:38 AM
What about the batteries and the electricity necessary for electric cars? sure they are not an issue now when its an upper middle class trendy thing, but when all cars will have them? Those acid-laden batteries and all that extra electricity will have to be produced somewhere.

Quote from: Zanza on August 09, 2017, 11:11:56 AM
Mining the lithium and making the batteries apparently has a considerable emissions effect that offsets much of the gains from electric propulsion itself.

Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2017, 09:50:05 PM
Iirc processing lithium requires a shitload of electricity, so it isn't the process directly that causes emissions, but the creation of energy needed.

Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2017, 09:55:27 PM

Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2017, 09:50:05 PM
Iirc processing lithium requires a shitload of electricity, so it isn't the process directly that causes emissions, but the creation of energy needed.

Ah ok. Well that is an obstacle that can be overcome then.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 13, 2017, 10:50:21 AM
My Big Trak took four D cells and a 9-volt.  I can only imagine the number of D cells for a Tesla.

Quote


(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9ffaf1acf5a852db364fcb1b44584f62cfea17f4/0_354_5120_3073/master/5120.jpg?w=700&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=baa5ef1824f8b4b656f0a50edb6b5ddc) (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/huge-tunisian-solar-park-hopes-to-provide-saharan-power-to-europe#img-1')
The plant would harness the power of the Saharan sun with towers up to 200m tall, similar to ones in Andalusia.

Solar power  (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/environment/solarpower')

Huge Tunisian solar park hopes to provide Saharan power to Europe

Developer TuNur has applied to build a 4.5GW plant in the Sahara and pipe enough electricity via submarine cables to power two million European homes

Arthur Neslen (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/profile/arthurneslen')

Wednesday 6 September 2017 18.03 BST  Last modified on Thursday 7 September 2017 10.16 BST

An enormous solar park in the Sahara could soon be exporting electricity to Europe if Tunisia's government approves an energy company's request to build it.

The 4.5GW mega-project planned by TuNur (http://'http://www.nurenergie.com/tunur/') would pipe electricity to Malta, Italy and France using submarine cables in the grandest energy export project since the abandoned (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/05/renewable-energy-desertec-foundation-dii') Desertec initiative (http://'http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/desertec-abandons-sahara-solar-power-export-dream/').

Kevin Sara, TuNur's chief executive said: "If European governments take the Paris accord seriously and want to meet the less than two degrees target (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/paris-climate-deal-2c-warming-study') for global warming, we need to start importing renewables."

"60% of Europe's primary energy is currently imported from Russia or the Middle East. Does the EU really want to be investing in infrastructure that lasts 50 years but which just enables more fossil fuel use?"

The EU is already considering awarding priority status to an underwater cable linking Tunisia with Italy, and TuNur expects construction work on a €5bn plant to begin by 2019 in southwest Tunisia (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/world/tunisia').

"We would target delivering power to the European grid via Malta by 2021," Sara said. The following year, the first of two cables to Italy could be laid, with a French connection up and running by 2024, he added.

The resulting solar complex would sprawl over an area three times the size of Manhattan, harnessing the power of the Saharan sun with several towers up to 200m tall.

Hundreds of thousands of parabolic mirrors would reflect sunlight onto these towers, heating molten salts within them that would in turn broil water, generating enough steam to power turbines that could electrify 2m European homes (http://'http://www.nurenergie.com/tunur/').

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a688d8487dfd8df8e43a31c8b4ce0987f27877c5/0_0_480_476/master/480.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=59bcdcac56a8f98ad2bfe0a95a04fb41)
Map of the planned TuNur solar project.

Up to 20,000 jobs could be created by the private sector initiative, which unites the London-based solar developer Nur Energie with Tunisian and Maltese developers.

But Chafik Ben Rouine, a spokesman for the Tunisian Economic Observatory, questioned whether the mega-project's gold would match its glitter.

"Our biggest concern is with TuNur's credibility as their website says they only have experience with two small solar projects," he said. "We have big concerns about their capacity to deliver this project and their financial ability to leverage it."

Four years ago, the €400bn Desertec initiative (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/05/renewable-energy-desertec-foundation-dii') imploded, leaving dreams of a Saharan power battery for Europe in the dust – and a lasting regional wariness.

"It seems that a familiar 'colonial' scheme is being rolled out in front of our eyes," said Hamza Hamouchene, War on Want's North Africa (http://'https://www.theguardian.com/world/africa') and West Asia officer.

"Projects like TuNur deny local people control and access to their land, rob them of resources and concentrate the value created in the hands of domestic and foreign predatory elites and private companies."

TuNur says that it agreed to lease the project's land from a local tribe which remains "extremely positive" about the project.

Water usage will be restricted to wastewater from a local date tree plantation that would not otherwise be recycled, Sara said. The company also remains willing to supply electricity within Tunisia, which is itself facing power shortages (http://'http://blogs.worldbank.org/arabvoices/tunisia-faces-tough-strategic-choices-demand-energy-begins-outstrip-supply').

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2017, 08:47:27 PM
Going to be kinda tough to do with bullet holes and IED shrapnel in them all the time.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2017, 09:48:31 PM
And Jawas stealing shit.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2017, 09:51:43 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2017, 08:47:27 PM
Going to be kinda tough to do with bullet holes and IED shrapnel in them all the time.

Are you think of Libya, or did Tunisa fall apart too while I wasn't looking? :unsure:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2017, 11:42:19 AM
FT reports that the PRC is considering a ban on gasoline and disesel cars by 2040 - the UK and France have already announced similar plans.

The ban would fit in with the PRC's industrial strategy as alternative energy vehicles is one of their key targeted industries, and allows them to skip over a technological generation where Chinese industry is well behind the curve.

It would only make sense if the PRC simultaneously commits to reducing coal as a contribution to their electric generation mix - evidence is that is already well underway.

Quote from: derspiess on September 11, 2017, 12:53:07 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2017, 11:42:19 AM
FT reports that the PRC is considering a ban on gasoline and disesel cars by 2040 - the UK and France have already announced similar plans.

The ban would fit in with the PRC's industrial strategy as alternative energy vehicles is one of their key targeted industries, and allows them to skip over a technological generation where Chinese industry is well behind the curve.

It would only make sense if the PRC simultaneously commits to reducing coal as a contribution to their electric generation mix - evidence is that is already well underway.

They still want coal though, right?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2017, 11:42:19 AM
FT reports that the PRC is considering a ban on gasoline and disesel cars by 2040 - the UK and France have already announced similar plans.

The ban would fit in with the PRC's industrial strategy as alternative energy vehicles is one of their key targeted industries, and allows them to skip over a technological generation where Chinese industry is well behind the curve.

It would only make sense if the PRC simultaneously commits to reducing coal as a contribution to their electric generation mix - evidence is that is already well underway.

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 11, 2017, 07:08:06 PM
You can have my internal combustion engines when you pry them out of my ICE cold dead hands

Quote from: Ed Anger on September 11, 2017, 07:59:54 PM
I saw what you did there

Quote
Why the UK offshore wind success must go global

• Jillian Ambrose (http://'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/jillian-ambrose/')
  

11 September 2017 • 8:05pm

Only a few years ago sceptics scoffed at claims that offshore wind power could be generated for a third less within a decade; this week the industry cut its costs by half in less than three years (http://'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/11/offshore-wind-power-175bn-investment-boom-costs-halve/'). This will mean cheaper energy bills for British households. But it could also establish the UK as a world leader in the green technology, as turbines are built along the coast.

Yet the Great British offshore wind boom is still notable for the absence of any large, UK-based players. The big winners in the Government's latest auction were Denmark's Dong Energy and Statkraft, Portugal's EDP Renewables and French energy company Engie.

Dong's projects will soon earn the company more than £1.5bn a year in subsidies. Dong Energy secured a guaranteed revenue of just £57.50 per megawatt hour of electricity produced at the second phase of its Hornsea project off the Yorkshire coast in 2022-23. Meanwhile, EDP Renewables and Engie, formerly known as GDF Suez, have been granted the same size contract for the Moray East offshore wind farm off the North East coast of Scotland.

     
This is a sharp fall from the £74.75/MWh granted to Germany's Innogy and Statkraft's Triton Knoll project, which will start up just one year earlier. It is also less than half the cost of turbines already producing power at around £150/MWh. Scottish Power Renewables, the developer arm of the Big Six supplier, dropped out of the running in August before the auction began, saying its East Anglia 2 project off the Suffolk coast would not be ready in time.


European wind developers are working towards meeting the Government's target for 50pc of offshore wind parts to be sourced from within the UK by 2020, with some success. The amount of UK kit and skills going into offshore wind farms has climbed five percentage points in the last two years to 48pc. This figure climbs as high as 78pc in the development phase of a wind project, which includes the licensing, planning and surveying work.

Dong, for example, is building its 260 foot blades at factories in Hull and the Isle of Wight (http://'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/10/dong-energys-oil-exit-pays-offshore-turbines-begin-spinning/'). Its hi-tech components will be exported for use in Europe. These factories have already created hundreds of UK jobs, but ultimately profit manufacturer MHI Vestas, another Danish company. The UK clearly has more work to do to avoid losing the full benefit of the boom to foreign energy firms.

Richard Turner, chief executive of sub-sea cable developer JDR Cables, says the real economic benefit of offshore wind will emerge only if British supply chain companies can tap the growing global market.

"In the UK there are big projects and there's huge potential to grow but if you're looking to set up a business to serve only the UK market there wouldn't be steady enough demand from project to project," he says. "What we're doing now is looking at the global market."

  (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fbusiness%2F2016%2F06%2F03%2F18555316__Largest_Wind_FarmWind_turbines_at_the_London_Array_project_the_world_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bquekma6JdSY14HJOxB1t3SSNlKkPd_4egc2LN-fJDbOE.jpg%3Fimwidth%3D480&hash=414ed1bb411e9de0518ce83223ff76789339af0c)

To date, the global market has lagged the progress made in the UK. At the same time manufacturers have found themselves priced out of the market due to the strong price of sterling. "Now with the devaluation of the pound and the demand for offshore wind in other parts of the world there is a major opportunity," says Turner.


Peter Keirnan, an analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit, says offshore wind power is "a very exportable technology". He adds: "There are many parts of the world where offshore wind hasn't taken off yet. Off the east coast of the US developers have only just begun, and in Asia there is a lot of potential."

Earlier this year Scottish Power quietly broke into the burgeoning US offshore wind market (http://'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/20/scottish-power-heads-west-us-offshore-wind-rush/') by successfully bidding for two large projects off the east coast, each the size of its entire UK portfolio.

"The turbines are getting bigger, the technology is becoming more sophisticated, so government should really be seeing this as a good export opportunity," says Kiernan.

Turner, who holds a seat on the Offshore Wind Industry Council, is hoping now that the sector has proved its mettle, the Government will step in to offer a "sector deal", its new framework for supporting industries that can underpin growth in the wider economy.

"We're looking 30 years into the future for offshore wind to see what it could potentially yield," he says. "If you look at what's happened to offshore wind in the last 10 years, it's an amazing British success story. It's one we don't promote enough."

Quote from: Tonitrus on September 11, 2017, 11:21:49 PM
At risk of siding with Trump, wind power, most especially along the coasts, is a really ugly, un-aesthetic means of renewable energy.