Tucson utility signed 100MW ppa at 4.5 cents per kWh

[J.P.M.]

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.

As I wrote, opinions vary.

If iwhat Dan does was one or a few instances, I wouldn't have a problem. But it's a common occurrence, and often of poor or innuendo laden content or half truths of the nature that does no one any good and also hurts the chances of improvement of the body of knowledge. After ~ 40+ years around the subject, I think I may be entitled to an opinion as to the value of some content.

I'm in agreement with you about avoiding personalities. To that point, and, as I've also written more than a few times, I'm not writing about the poster. I'm critical of the content of Dan's posts and also (IMO only) what looks to me to be the self serving reasons why such blather shows up here in the first place. I don't like, or dislike, Dan. To do that I need to know him and I do not. FWIW, I suspect we share more than a few opinions - probably more than SK and I share. That has nothing to do with my beef.

I don't go around stinking up forums that deal with areas Dan may be knowledgeable in, consistently spouting junk that fits my world view with no real knowledge about what I'm writing about, and exhibiting what's easily seen as B.S. by people knowledgeable in such fields. I believe I have more respect and consideration of and for others than that.

I think it would be better for this forum and R.E. in general if Dan did the same with respect to this forum.

I'm done with this thread. The last word is for others.

[foo1bar]

I'm not writing about the poster. I'm critical of the content of Dan's posts

Ok - so what in this case was in need of criticism?

often of poor or innuendo laden content or half truths of the nature that does no one any good and also hurts the chances of improvement of the body of knowledge.

What's the half-truth or innuendo here?
I honestly don't see either.

[DanKegel]

What's the half-truth or innuendo here?
I honestly don't see either.

My question, too. I'm happy to correct anything I get wrong. Accuracy and objectivity are important to me.

[Sunking]

My question, too. I'm happy to correct anything I get wrong. Accuracy and objectivity are important to me.

Dan the problem is you would not know right from wrong. All you do is surf the web all day to find links that support your agenda. You have no clue if any of the info is real or fairy tales. All anyone has to do is search the Web with your username and see what you really do and who you really are.

[foo1bar]

Dan the problem is you would not know right from wrong.

So presumably you do.

What is it that was wrong about his posts in this thread that has you and JPM so upset?

[DanKegel]

More about the storage cost for that system:
utilitydive.com/news/valuing-storage-a-closer-look-at-the-tucson-electric-solar-plus-storage-pp/448370/
says
"Lazar then takes the difference between the cost with storage and the cost without storage, i.e., 1.5 cents, and divides it by the percentage of energy stored, in other words, 12%. The result is 1.5 cents divided by 12% which comes out to $0.083/kWh. When you add in a 20% discount for round-trip efficiency losses, the total cost comes to $0.089/kWh."

Presumably that's the price after the 30% federal tax credit? The article doesn't seem to say.

[DanKegel]

For a more recent comparison, pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/11/09/nv-energy-seeks-approval-for-31-34mwh-solar-ppas says NV Energy is seeking approval to sign PPAs for 50MW AC of solar near Boulder City for 3.42 cents per kWh. No storage. (That beats the 3.87 cents per kWh mentioned earlier in this thread for a 2015 project. Prices came down by 11% in two years?)

[SunEagle]

For a more recent comparison, pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/11/09/nv-energy-seeks-approval-for-31-34mwh-solar-ppas says NV Energy is seeking approval to sign PPAs for 50MW AC of solar near Boulder City for 3.42 cents per kWh. No storage. (That beats the 3.87 cents per kWh mentioned earlier in this thread for a 2015 project. Prices came down by 11% in two years?)

It does look like the cost to generate power via solar continues to come down enough for a lot of POCO's to jump at installing more systems.

Now if they can get that price down for the entire 24 hour period I would say we are on to something. But as of now there is no way to generate power from batteries at 3.42 cents / kWh so that cost / kWh is a little misleading to me.

[DanKegel]

More progress:
utilitydive.com/news/aps-to-install-50-mw-135-mwh-solar-shifting-battery/516850/
says
"Arizona Public Service will install a 50 MW, 135 MWh battery that will help it shift the output of a 65 MW solar farm to deliver power when customer electricity demand is greatest.
The APS contract with developer First Solar will allow it to use the battery to deliver solar power when electricity use is at its peak, between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. each day. Pricing information was not released."

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/50-megawatt-battery-will-give-arizona-peak-power-from-the-sun
adds
"APS didn't set out looking for storage, per se.
This project emerged from a request for proposal that started a year ago. It was open to any technology, but the bids had to deliver power between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the summertime.
Those are the peak hours that drive much of the new capacity investments APS will have to make in coming decades, even as the abundance of midday solar power grows.
Bids included conventional renewables, standalone batteries and natural-gas peaking plants, but First Solar's hybrid solar-storage proposal won out."

Interesting that solar+battery was able to beat out a gas peaker for a time period that includes after sunset.

[SunEagle]

More progress:
utilitydive.com/news/aps-to-install-50-mw-135-mwh-solar-shifting-battery/516850/
says
"Arizona Public Service will install a 50 MW, 135 MWh battery that will help it shift the output of a 65 MW solar farm to deliver power when customer electricity demand is greatest.
The APS contract with developer First Solar will allow it to use the battery to deliver solar power when electricity use is at its peak, between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. each day. Pricing information was not released."

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/50-megawatt-battery-will-give-arizona-peak-power-from-the-sun
adds
"APS didn't set out looking for storage, per se.
This project emerged from a request for proposal that started a year ago. It was open to any technology, but the bids had to deliver power between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the summertime.
Those are the peak hours that drive much of the new capacity investments APS will have to make in coming decades, even as the abundance of midday solar power grows.
Bids included conventional renewables, standalone batteries and natural-gas peaking plants, but First Solar's hybrid solar-storage proposal won out."

Interesting that solar+battery was able to beat out a gas peaker for a time period that includes after sunset.

Sounds like progress to me. Although I would not quite believe that a solar/battery system could be cheaper to install, run and produce electricity then a gas peaker.

Buut with the price of gas changing all the time and the costs of batteries coming down anything is possible.

[J.P.M.]

More progress:
utilitydive.com/news/aps-to-install-50-mw-135-mwh-solar-shifting-battery/516850/
says
"Arizona Public Service will install a 50 MW, 135 MWh battery that will help it shift the output of a 65 MW solar farm to deliver power when customer electricity demand is greatest.
The APS contract with developer First Solar will allow it to use the battery to deliver solar power when electricity use is at its peak, between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. each day. Pricing information was not released."

greentechmedia.com/articles/read/50-megawatt-battery-will-give-arizona-peak-power-from-the-sun
adds
"APS didn't set out looking for storage, per se.
This project emerged from a request for proposal that started a year ago. It was open to any technology, but the bids had to deliver power between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the summertime.
Those are the peak hours that drive much of the new capacity investments APS will have to make in coming decades, even as the abundance of midday solar power grows.
Bids included conventional renewables, standalone batteries and natural-gas peaking plants, but First Solar's hybrid solar-storage proposal won out."

Interesting that solar+battery was able to beat out a gas peaker for a time period that includes after sunset.

Although I read that pricing information was not released, I wonder if just maybe 1st solar did something called "buying the job" - basically, giving it away or selling it way below cost for any number of reasons which are easy to imagine or conjure up.

I've heard those types of things sometimes happen (GASP !), although I've never personally seen it over a long engineering career, or the one before that as a peddler of industrial equipment.