Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tucson utility signed 100MW ppa at 4.5 cents per kWh

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tucson utility signed 100MW ppa at 4.5 cents per kWh

    That's after 30% ITC subsidy, so unsubsidized price is probably more like 6.25 cents/kWh.
    The p​​​rice even includes a 30MW, 120 MWh battery.

    For comparison, NV Energy signed a 100MW ppa without storage recently at $0.0387 per kWh after subsidy.

    To state the obvious: The storage is intriguing, as it could address some of the issues with high solar penetration.
    The combined system could output ~60MW during the day, and ~30MW for the four peak load hours, whenever they occur, so adding this system wouldn't increase the need for peaker plants as storage-free solar might.
    And they could charge faster when grid power was cheap, which could help avoid negative power pricing.

    (The four hour battery discharge time reminds me of the "clean peak standard" proposal, strategen.com/new-blog/2016/12/1/evolving-the-rps-a-clean-peak-standard-for-a-smarter-renewable-future )
    ​​​​​​
    Sources:
    utilitydive.com/news/updated-tucson-electric-signs-solar-storage-ppa-for-less-than-45kwh/443293/
    utilitydive.com/news/nv-energy-buys-utility-scale-solar-at-record-low-price-under-4-centskwh/401989/
    Last edited by DanKegel; 05-29-2017, 05:26 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    That's after 30% ITC subsidy, so unsubsidized price is probably more like 6.25 cents/kWh.
    The p​​​rice even includes a 30MW, 120 MWh battery.

    For comparison, NV Energy signed a 100MW ppa without storage recently at $0.0387 per kWh after subsidy.

    To state the obvious: The storage is intriguing, as it could address some of the issues with high solar penetration.
    The combined system could output ~60MW during the day, and ~30MW for the four peak load hours, whenever they occur, so adding this system wouldn't increase the need for peaker plants as storage-free solar might.
    And they could charge faster when grid power was cheap, which could help avoid negative power pricing.

    (The four hour battery discharge time reminds me of the "clean peak standard" proposal,

    Source 1
    Source 2

    More of Dan's BS post. I hope this gets you banned finally. You need to go.How many times have you been told to never start a thread or post links? I reported you.

    Sorry Dan caught you with the links before you could edit them out. You are busted.
    Last edited by Sunking; 05-29-2017, 07:17 PM.
    MSEE, PE

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sunking View Post
      More of Dan's BS post. I hope this gets you banned finally. You need to go.How many times have you been told to never start a thread or post links? I reported you.
      Sorry Dan caught you with the links before you could edit them out. You are busted.
      SK, you seem to be confused about what the admins told me; they never told me to not start threads.
      They put me on a link diet, but said it was fine to include links as long as they aren't clickable. If you look, they're not now (nor were they ever) clickable in my post. (In the past, I've accidentally posted clickable links, then made them nonclickable as soon as I noticed... but given my intent is to follow the rules, and when I screw up it's only for a minute or two, I doubt they mind too much.)

      So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. There's been a lot of discussion about solar not being able to provide power after sunset, and it's exciting that a utility is ordering up utility-scale solar with storage included to address that issue -- and that it's relatively cheap.
      Last edited by DanKegel; 05-29-2017, 08:10 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

        SK, you seem to be confused about what the admins told me; they never told me to not start threads.
        They put me on a link diet, but said it was fine to include links as long as they aren't clickable. If you look, they're not now (nor were they ever) clickable in my post. (In the past, I've accidentally posted clickable links, then made them nonclickable as soon as I noticed... but given my intent is to follow the rules, and when I screw up it's only for a minute or two, I doubt they mind too much.)

        So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. There's been a lot of discussion about solar not being able to provide power after sunset, and it's exciting that a utility is ordering up utility-scale solar with storage included to address that issue -- and that it's relatively cheap.
        You're separating fly specs from pepper. Not that it matters, but I was and am of the opinion that the purpose of what you call a diet had at least 2 purposes that I can see: 1.) To stop, or at least reduce the facility for you to rudely, irresponsibly and disrespectfully get your one sided and shill like posts before those not informed enough to know how they're mostly one sided misinformation and, 2.) Send a message your way to knock off the B.S. and hope you'd take the hint. So far the first seems partially met, the second not so much.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
          I was and am of the opinion that the purpose of what you call a diet had at least 2 purposes that I can see: 1.) To stop, or at least reduce the facility for you to rudely, irresponsibly and disrespectfully get your one sided and shill like posts before those not informed enough to know how they're mostly one sided misinformation and, 2.) Send a message your way to knock off the B.S. and hope you'd take the hint.
          Here's what Pete said: solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar/the-pros-and-cons-of-solar-energy/337465-report-describing-utilities-attack-plan-on-solar-power?p=338499#post338499
          Dan I am going to put you on a link ban. You may still post articles that you think are relevant to solar but dont make it a live link, if someone wants to go and look they can copy and paste it into their browser, non reciprocal links are not good for this forum and I want to start working on having a lot less of it.
          That was a couple of weeks after he announced a general policy discouraging links: solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panel-talk-information/announcements-from-solar-panel-talk/337174-hello-everybody

          Just a word on links and posting pic's, I hate links, all links, but I know its a necessary evil at times. Non reciprocal links hurt our google page rankings and it's now my life's mission to improve our google page rank. Anyone that knows anything about doing that please feel free to chime in.
          I think he asked me in particular because I post so many links. I'm happy to oblige; clickability isn't really important when showing sources.

          As for "shills" and "misinformation"... I suppose any mention at all of renewable energy is enough to send some red-state types into a tizzy, no matter how well-founded.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

            Here's what Pete said: solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar/the-pros-and-cons-of-solar-energy/337465-report-describing-utilities-attack-plan-on-solar-power?p=338499#post338499

            That was a couple of weeks after he announced a general policy discouraging links: solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panel-talk-information/announcements-from-solar-panel-talk/337174-hello-everybody



            I think he asked me in particular because I post so many links. I'm happy to oblige; clickability isn't really important when showing sources.

            As for "shills" and "misinformation"... I suppose any mention at all of renewable energy is enough to send some red-state types into a tizzy, no matter how well-founded.
            Like everyone else, you can sure think what you want.

            Me too.

            I think your actions around here most often have negative impacts in several ways, most notably on the quality of the content of the material that sends or at least implies R.E. is the savior of the world.

            I think misleading or fuzzy headed, one sided information such as you often spew that paints R.E. as the savior of the world ought to send thoughtful, responsible people who think R.E. can make a serious contribution to a better planet into a tizzy.

            I think actions such as your usual fare around here only hurt the credibility of those who truly want to improve things and do know what they're doing by virtue of training and experience, by giving more ammo to the naysayers from not only red, but also blue and purple states, and for that matter, and with an attempt to be a bit cosmopolitan about it, the rest of the world - a good portion of which can benefit the most from a less rose colored glasses and more realistic attempt at more information about how R.E. can improve the human condition - a perspective, from where I sit anyway, that seems missing from your stuff.

            I think you're doing more harm than good, especially with the rose colored glasses outlook on R.E..

            I think that while the damage your type of misinformation can do is as bad, it's not as immediate or as visible as of the type of misinformation that gets posters banned, and so doesn't get same treatment.

            I think your behavior around here is rude, and irresponsible, and self centered, and insidiously malicious. I think most of it is done to feed your ego.

            I will continue to call B.S. on your stuff when I think it's appropriate.
            Last edited by J.P.M.; 05-30-2017, 10:39 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
              I think that while the damage your type of misinformation ...
              Except it's not misinformation; it's entirely factual. You haven't bothered to post any evidence supporting your continual charges, probably because they're political in nature, not related to physical reality. And that's why your attacks never land; there's no there there.

              Comment


              • #8
                $0.045/kwh seems a little pricey - but it does include battery to timeshift - so I'm not sure how that is valued.

                Palo Alto did a 26kw system for $.0.37/kwh over a year ago.

                https:// cleantechnica.com/2016/02/23/palo-alto-california-approves-solar-ppa-hecate-energy-36-76mwh-record-low/

                Obviously the Tucson utility thinks it's worthwhile to make the deal. I would expect they have sufficient expertise to analyze it for their business. Much better than some armchair quarterbacks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Update:
                  utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get-solar-storage-for-45kwh/443715/
                  quotes an estimate for the unsubsidized price for the energy from that solar+storage system: 9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                    Update:
                    utilitydive.com/news/how-can-tucson-electric-get-solar-storage-for-45kwh/443715/
                    quotes an estimate for the unsubsidized price for the energy from that solar+storage system: 9
                    And at an unsubsidized cost of $0.09/kWh out to the grid, not a selling price to the consumer/user. As such, it has a ways to go before it gets competitive with other ways of generation, and, as seems obvious from the location, not a geographically universal application. It is however, moving in the right direction.

                    Come back and post something when the busbar cost for a means of supplying electricity to the grid - calculated the same way as for other methods of supplying power - is lower or equal to the lowest alternate means of doing the same thing calculated the same way.

                    Articles such as this are misleading to those who do not understand the realities of power generation (most of the world ?), and give false hope that free energy or at least lower electric bills are just around the corner for the great unwashed masses.

                    That article is but another example of most of the junk you reference. Not lies, just useless fluff that seems innocuous enough - on the surface - but looking a bit deeper, useful as more B.S. that con men and their treehugger shills can point to to reinforce lies/half truths pitched to the energy ignorant who what to believe in what's more the romance of solar energy than the reality, something in the spirit of: "We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves." (Goethe), with the self deception aided, I'd add, by people with money to make from the need and ignorance.

                    I don't know if you're consciously or unconsiously aiding the deception, or both, and don't care. I just call you out for what I see as harmful, deceptive, misleading B.S. that's irresponsibly presented when I think I see it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                      I don't know if you're consciously or unconsiously aiding the deception, or both, and don't care. I just call you out for what I see as harmful, deceptive, misleading B.S. that's irresponsibly presented when I think I see it.
                      I think he is just that stupid and believes it.

                      MSEE, PE

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                        And at an unsubsidized cost of $0.09/kWh out to the grid, not a selling price to the consumer/user. As such, it has a ways to go before it gets competitive with other ways of generation, and, as seems obvious from the location, not a geographically universal application. It is however, moving in the right direction.

                        Come back and post something when the busbar cost for a means of supplying electricity to the grid - calculated the same way as for other methods of supplying power - is lower or equal to the lowest alternate means of doing the same thing calculated the same way.

                        Articles such as this are misleading to those who do not understand the realities of power generation (most of the world ?), and give false hope that free energy or at least lower electric bills are just around the corner for the great unwashed masses.

                        That article is but another example of most of the junk you reference. Not lies, just useless fluff that seems innocuous enough - on the surface - but looking a bit deeper, useful as more B.S. that con men and their treehugger shills can point to to reinforce lies/half truths pitched to the energy ignorant who what to believe in what's more the romance of solar energy than the reality, something in the spirit of: "We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves." (Goethe), with the self deception aided, I'd add, by people with money to make from the need and ignorance.

                        I don't know if you're consciously or unconsiously aiding the deception, or both, and don't care. I just call you out for what I see as harmful, deceptive, misleading B.S. that's irresponsibly presented when I think I see it.
                        At the risk of stepping into something I don't want to be stepping into, can I just offer my opinion that the last two paragraphs of your reply could have just been left out ...

                        While I've found this forum very useful in my solar learning and solar decision process / installation -- every time I see this what seems to be a personal spat flair up (don't know or care who is responsible for it, because it takes more than one to continue it), I think about just giving up on this forum. But since I did go ahead and buy the 12+ acre property in Valley Center, and building sometime in the next two years, I want to keep up with this forum.

                        Again, paragraph one to three was perfect in terms of expressing the merits of your argument. Paragraph four and five only extends "the argument".
                        8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CharlieEscCA View Post

                          At the risk of stepping into something I don't want to be stepping into, can I just offer my opinion that the last two paragraphs of your reply could have just been left out ...

                          While I've found this forum very useful in my solar learning and solar decision process / installation -- every time I see this what seems to be a personal spat flair up (don't know or care who is responsible for it, because it takes more than one to continue it), I think about just giving up on this forum. But since I did go ahead and buy the 12+ acre property in Valley Center, and building sometime in the next two years, I want to keep up with this forum.

                          Again, paragraph one to three was perfect in terms of expressing the merits of your argument. Paragraph four and five only extends "the argument".
                          Opinions vary. Yours is noted and respected as yours. Once in a while I'll suggest people question everything everyone says or writes, even and especially me. And, as I often put at the end of a post, take what you want. Scrap the rest. You can also and always put me on your exclusion list.

                          I'm not a crusader, but the stuff of an R.E. nature that Dan often posts, while perhaps or probably not immediately dangerous, can have just as sinister consequences over the long term in ways too involved and numerous to delineate. It also, among other damaging attributes, and IMO only, cheapens the content of this forum and reduces its credibility.

                          There's a lot of brain fluff forums of all stripes pro and con R.E. that pander to junk science and wishful thinking. IMO, this forum would benefit if Dan would take his one sided and usually ill informed stuff relating to R.E. elsewhere.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                            Opinions vary. Yours is noted and respected as yours. Once in a while I'll suggest people question everything everyone says or writes, even and especially me. And, as I often put at the end of a post, take what you want. Scrap the rest. You can also and always put me on your exclusion list.
                            I would never put you on an exclude list I very much appreciate all the knowledge you bring to this forum. I've seen the "take what you want, scrap the rest" many a time (a line that pretty much applies to everything said verbally or in a forum when information is processed by a thinking individual as opposed to a "sheeple" type of individual).

                            Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                            I'm not a crusader, but the stuff of an R.E. nature that Dan often posts, while perhaps or probably not immediately dangerous, can have just as sinister consequences over the long term in ways too involved and numerous to delineate. It also, among other damaging attributes, and IMO only, cheapens the content of this forum and reduces its credibility.

                            There's a lot of brain fluff forums of all stripes pro and con R.E. that pander to junk science and wishful thinking. IMO, this forum would benefit if Dan would take his one sided and usually ill informed stuff relating to R.E. elsewhere.
                            As long as "fluff" stays in the General Discussion area as opposed to the other areas, IMO I don't see an impact to the credibility of this forum.

                            But having said that, I fully support you having your opinion and beliefs -- and for that matter expressing your views in anyway you see fit (though as a relatively new person to this forum, I did want to point out how it looked to me and possibly to others).

                            Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
                            8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
                              I'm not a crusader, but the stuff of an R.E. nature that Dan often posts, while perhaps or probably not immediately dangerous, can have just as sinister consequences over the long term in ways too involved and numerous to delineate. It also, among other damaging attributes, and IMO only, cheapens the content of this forum and reduces its credibility.
                              What is it you find so objectionable about the posts Dan made to start this thread?

                              I don't see anything other than facts about what is being done for a project at utility scale.
                              The area it's posted in is "General Discussion" in a forum called "solarpaneltalk". So it seems like a reasonable place to mention an article like this.
                              It's hard for me to believe that pointing to an article about a utility scale solar project and mentioning it's cost per kwh in a forum that's meant for discussing solar power is going to have "sinister consequences".

                              One of the things damaging this forum is this kind of crap where it's obviously about the person who posted and not the content of the post.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X