Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Forbes the Eland solar project is the end of the line for fossil fuel. Except at night, or when clouds cover the sky, or when the batteries run flat.
New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear
Jeff McMahon Senior Contributor
Jul 1, 2019, 12:03amLos Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin.
Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.
“This is the lowest solar-photovoltaic price in the United States,” said James Barner, the agency’s manager for strategic initiatives, “and it is the largest and lowest-cost solar and high-capacity battery-storage project in the U.S. and we believe in the world today. So this is, I believe, truly revolutionary in the industry.”
…
The Eland Project will not rid Los Angeles of natural gas, however. The city will still depend on gas and hydro to supply its overnight power. But the batteries in this 400-megawatt project will take a bite out of the fossil share of LA’s power pie.
“It reduces the evening ramp (of natural gas) as the sun sets,” Barner told commissioners at their June 18 meeting. “As the sun goes down for our other 1,000 MW of solar that doesn’t have batteries, the gas-fired generation and hydro have to compensate for that. So that net peak load in the evening will be offset with this facility. We’ll be able to contribute to that and keep gas powered generation not running at the full amount.”
Crudely, Los Angeles can count on solar power generation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., said Louis Ting, director of power planning development at the agency. The batteries in this project effectively extend that horizon four hours, to 11 p.m.
…
Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar–battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/
What terrific news. The low cost of this new plant creates an irresistible economic case for moving to solar energy, completely eliminating the need for the Paris Agreement, government renewable incentives and coercive carbon taxes.
I’m sure you’ll all join me in congratulating climate leader Los Angeles for transforming the future of global energy.
Update (EW): Some cynical comments appearing. Surely you guys don’t think Los Angeles is somehow LYING about their solar breakthrough? 😉
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How will their electricity prices compare with the rest of the country?
Shhh, you’ll spoil the surprise.
Maybe you can make this out . This is a page that has a video of the meeting (Jun 18, 2019) that this presentation was made. it is item 8. D, I think. You may have to copy and paste the link
http://ladwp.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2&&_afrLoop=295120843836842
lower
Lower with subsidies 😉
Even lower with no sun.
Which is why it won’t work in Michigan. Most of the year it is cold and cloudy.
Number please.
Lower, give us the number.
If this article is accurate, Los Angeles will be paying 1.997 cents /Kwh for solar. According to my electric bill (which I’m looking at right now) I’m paying 0.0654 cents /Kwh. I’m buying my electricity from Commonwealth Edison which I believe is a part of the Excelon Corporation. I live in the north suburbs of Chicago. My electricity comes from a mix of natural gas, coal and nuclear.
This is such a huge price difference either I’m missing something in this comparison or the people of Los Angeles are getting screwed.
Check your math. Believe $0.065. However, 0.06 CENTS is not worth metering.
The 1.997 cents is the wholesale price LA will buy it for, residential price will include delivery charges, tax plus profit. The residential rate in LA is 13 cents and believe me it will not go down due to a small amount of solar.
It’s your math. .0654 is 6 cents. You are paying 3X the price the LA utility is paying.
Here are current rates. Residential rates in LA are currently slightly higher than the nationwide average:
https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/los-angeles/
https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/los-angeles/
Note: Even though the rates per kWh are higher in LA than the U.S. average, monthly electric bills in LA may actually be lower than the national average, since the climate in LA is pretty mild.
LA monthly temperatures
People in LA don’t need A/C?
Mark Bahner,
It’s not done with “Note: Even though the rates per kWh are higher in LA than the U.S. average, monthly electric bills in LA may actually be lower than the national average, since the climate in LA is pretty mild.”
The whole picture is living costs:
https://www.google.com/search?q=living+costs+comparison&oq=living+costs+&aqs=chrome.
“The whole picture is living costs:”
This article is about energy, especially electricity. So the relevant part of “the whole picture” of living costs is electricity costs.
As I noted, even though LA electricity cost per kWh may be higher than the national average, the total monthly electricity costs may be lower due to LA’s mild climate.
And W O W a whopping 7% over a period of 12 hours obviously not including nighttime or winter so really about 3.5% when 24 Hour time is factored in. AYUP a real byte (or at least a bit)
Mosher, why do you throw out unsupported assertions – especially when you happen to be right (at least going by this press release)?
Wholesale from Palo Verde Nuclear Plant is, right now, just under 3¢/kWh. So, yes, this is a lower price than the prices they claim for this contract.
Now, of course there are questions – and things left out, besides. Is this actually a fixed wholesale rate for the entire 25 years, with a guaranteed power availability? (The capital lifetime is quite a bit less – so there are some major maintenance and replacement costs if they are going to keep that much available capacity running.) The backup plants are also going to have a higher allocated capital cost per kWh (making them more expensive, but the stupid way, by having them not running at normal capacity). So, will the actual cost to an Angelino at the meter go down – or up? (Knowing California, it will be up. However, one cannot predict whether that will be due to real costs, or artificial costs from their ever increasing taxation and regulation.)
Ontario Canada says hi and that you’re extremely receptive to wishful thinking.
Apr 22, 2019
Unreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electricity More Expensive, New Study Finds
Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/04/22/unreliable-nature-of-solar-and-wind-makes-electricity-much-more-expensive-major-new-study-finds/#59cd9cd44f59
=============
JUNE 3, 2019
Study Finds Wind and Solar 2 to 3 Times More Expensive Than Existing Generation Resources
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/study-finds-wind-and-solar-2-to-3-times-more-expensive-than-existing-generation-resources/
================
Feb 8, 2019
The average LCOEs from existing coal ($41), cc gas ($36), nuclear ($33), and hydro ($38) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90) or new PV solar resources ($88.7) with imposed costs included.
I am sure Los Angeles will handle solar energy every bit as well as the city government handled the homeless situation.
I don’t track solar, but I do grid scale batteries.
The best price I’ve seen is $95/KWh capacity with a 5,000 cycle estimated life.
That gives $0.019/KWh delivered. But by the time you turn it into an integrated solution it’s around $0.05-$0.06/KWh. That doesn’t count the cost of the electricity to charge the battery.
I simply don’t believe $0.013/KWh for the power coming from a grid battery. There’s more to the story.
“but I do grid scale batteries” You have my curiosity. To what scale are your batteries?
A 1 MW / 4 MWh battery is about the size of a semi-truck. Here’s one installed in support of a water plant:
The LA project is still deciding between 100 MW and 150 MW, so you’re looking a fairly big footprint just for the batteries.
Nice photo but what is the cspacity? How much larger would the solar storage “battery” need to be to supply 100 megawatt for four hours? Installed $capital cost?
Well, at 2600 acres for what amounts to 3.5% of Los Angeles’ current electric consumption this fiasco is a vast overuse of land for a minimal return. Factor in transportation and heating and that 3.5% drops to around 1%. To electrify Los Angeles 100% by solar including all heating transportation and private autos AND allow for charging of personal home battery back-up systems and auto quick charging batteries will require more than 100 times that space and closer to 200 times for battery back-up recharging, closer to 500000 acres of solar panels just for L.A.
What, LA has no rooftops? No parking lots??
Rooftop solar panels are only good for the building on which they reside and best for single family homes. They are Wild Cards WRT grid stability and creating potential over-current instabilities as they are an All Or Nothing proposition to the grid.
I work for a local utility in a county supplied by “clean power”. Numerous times I have asked why we, a utility, don’t have solar on our rooftops or on structures covering our parking lots, in the end, the cost/benefit analysis indicates a negative ROE.
To have solar on my roof and battery backup sufficient to supply 100% of my 24 hour daily use would require that I build a support structure for the panels. My cost is still in the $80,000 range to offset a $225 monthly bill. This would take almost 30 years to completely offset my monthly bill and I would by 87 at that time. Then there is maintenance and panel degradation requiring replacement costs along the way. Realistically my break even point wouldn’t be realized until after I was in my grave.
Rooftop solar is a negative ROE for 50 years
The acreage will increase significantly when you factor in the overall efficiency for the solar plant, which is normally around 10-15 percent of rated capacity. This based on a twenty four cycle.
The cost are low due the federal subsidies that lower the capital cost by 30 percent.
Is it a subsidy or a tax credit? It might be unfair to grant a tax credit to this and not to fossil fuel generation, but a tax credit isn’t costing the taxpayers anything.
Maybe I’m missing something, but doesn’t a tax credit for one entity result in a reduction in government revenue? This will potentially raise taxes on every other entity, given stable or increasing government expenditures. (They never seem to be otherwise.) .
The homeless will get their own individual PV sets. To charge their phones, etc. /s
And potholes.
When they buy their deisel generators the cardboard boxes they came in will make shelters for the homeless. Two birds with one stone.
WOW a new gene AND a name shelter…the gift that keeps on giving
What are the Federal and State subsidies? What are the take-or-pay and other delivery provisions of the contract?
a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.
Uh … relegate fossil fuels and nuclear power to the dustbin? By providing 7/100 of the electricity demand (BTW … what demand is that? Peak demand!? Average demand? summer demand? Winter demand?). So, all we will need is 14-15 MORE of these solar installations to provide 100 percent of the city’s electrical demand. Whatever that “demand” is … is …
The demand supplied from solar would only be useful when the sun is at a premium angle and batteries are fully charged so at best no more than 12 hours a day (1/2 the day). Their 7% figure is really 3.5% when averaged over a 24 hour day.
Not even 12 hours per day. With fixed panels you are lucky to get 2 hours per day of noon-time equivalent (peak efficiency) sun light). The rest of the day is at lower operating efficiencies because the angle of incidence of the sunlight is no longer perpendicular to the solar cell.
Also, how does this impact LADWP’s existing delivery contracts, especially coal?
They may pay to leave them. In Colorado the young people who have poured in, and the more progressive folks along the front range are demanding more renewable energy. Utilities are buying their way out of existing contracts with generators such as TriState, and buy power from IPPs. They may even abrogate these contracts in other means. This is going to leave a lot of stranded assets in places and devastate towns such as Craig, Colorado. The governor could not care less because the votes are on the front range.
I have no idea how far and fast problems will spread. Perhaps towns such as Wheatland, Wyoming and places in the Dakotas will be effected. More than likely we will see lots of gas turbines pop up to provide dispatchable power. Who will own and operate these? How will reliable will the grid remain in this region. What will energy cost? Standby.
I read a different article. It said some natural gas plants are at or near end of life. LA is looking for the replacement plants.
I seriously doubt LA has primary contracts with coal plants. They would be used only when the primary plants can’t keep up.
Delta, Utah has a dedicated HVDC line that terminates out at San Bernardino. I can’t imagine doing all the construction on the power plant and transmission line without a very long term contract.
“primary plants can’t keep up.” You mean hydro, coal and gas generation which LA is totally dependent on? Those “primary plants” ?
The story to be truthful has to be the whole story. How is it the electricity is sold so cheaply to DWP? There are some interesting ledger tricks going on here. A better reporter would have told us all about it. Where is the editor when you need him. This is propaganda, not news.
Couple of thoughts –
a) that is the wholesale rate, and
b) does not include “transportation” (HV transmission or distribution) costs – those are TBD later if it requires facilitates (lines) to be built.
I assume they’ve spotted a formation of flying pigs over LA too……
Yep, with solar panels on their backs…
Another children’s bedtime fantasy…
Great. So while most of LA sleeps, there is battery power for a single digit fraction of the slumbering.
Is there a lottery held for that fraction, or is it just the elite that get to keep their overnight A/C running?
hydro and gas for overnight.
At what cost? Please let us know.
Does that supply baseload too?
Except the Greenies want to eliminate Hydro and Gas as non renewable
More “climate migrants”. I.e., folks moving out of INTOLERABLE L.A. and trying to escape to the MIDWEST. Hint: We are going to put up a wall.
Just use crop dusters to spray a line of gluten along the California border, and the fear will keep them all right where they are.
+1
In 2018 LA County used 68000 GWH of energy (http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx) .
Accordingly a 400 MW solar capacity is only 5% of its needs.
0.5
“The plant is expected to deliver its first megawatt by April 2023, a timeline that qualifies it for the federal solar investment tax credit.
“This project is able to make full use of that investment tax credit, which is substantial,” Barner said. “It’s 30 percent that is basically knocked off the capital cost of the project.”
The figure of 1.997-cents per kwh for a solar plant output is a financially impossible figure. Ten times that amount is approximately what Ivanpah solar plant required just to break even while paying off its federally guaranteed construction loan.
re: “The figure of 1.997-cents per kwh for a solar plant output is a financially impossible figure. Ten times that amount is approximately what Ivanpah solar plant required just to break even while paying off its federally guaranteed construction loan.”
mosher doesn’t think so; I’d like know to his reasoning, his rationale on this, if any.
Quite accurate.
A claim that is a total absurdity.
You have to love that claim that battery power, which should include the cost of battery maintenance, inverter charges on top of the generating costs plus grid transmission costs.
Who cares for what mosher thinks, and less for what he writes?
re: “Who cares for what mosher thinks, and less for what he writes?”
It’s called “drawing out one’s opponent”, not that mosher is an opponent or that there is anything wrong with that (credit: Seinfeld).
Maybe that point is not apparent?
And that price pew KWH (consumed in the future) is guaranteed by what? The State Democratic Party?
The cynicism is festering!
So how does the cost to the customer compare to the same from a fossell
fuel generater. And are there any tax breaks and government suibsidies
a part of the mix.
And as for sneaking in gas as OK, not exactly a 100 % fossel fuel free
thing.
As for Hydro, that is very sneaky, after all Hydro is a No, no to the Greens,
there might be a small creature up there somewhere.
No way is this a 100 % Green thing. Its just a look at me thing, I am
bein good .
MJE VK5ELL
So, is this free-enterprise power or is it subsidized at both ends to make it appear to be within the sight of petroleum-fueled power after they tax and fee the latter out of sight?
And what about the entire concept-to-disposal energy equations? By the time they mine, manufacture, install, maintain, decommission, and dispose, how does the “green” look, both economically and environmentally?
why is power from the batteries cheaper than solar?
Where do they get the power to charge the batteries?
Where do they get power on windless, cloudy days?
thanks
JK
There are no cloudy days in Southern California.
“why is power from the batteries cheaper than solar?”
It’s not. Solar is 1.997, batteries 1.3.
????????What the heck am I missing here????
1.3 for batteries is cheaper than 1.997 for solar. Even though it is charged by solar, it is charged by the unused portion of solar which is cheaper because wesayso
I what number system is 1.3 not less than 1.997?
One where all numbers are negative! 🙂
there is less numbers in 1.3 than 1.997
LOL LOL…….there
isARE less numbers in 1.3 than 1.997In theory they are buying more than 400 MW of solar panels, but only sending 400 MW to the city at any time.
Any surplus production will feed the batteries. Depending on how the financials are setup the full cost of the solar panels could be covered by the 400 MWs, and any excess is free.
But $0.013 for the must the batteries isn’t believable.
‘Cause the batteries are really being recharged by Unicorn Flatus and Fairy dust
He failed to mention the perpetual motion machine part of the new system.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles rakes in tons of money with their control over the Carbon Trade Routes (China to CA to the flyover States).
“Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin.”
LADWP – LA Dept of Water and Power. My first professional job was there. The bureaucracy was stifling. I had to get out.
How is the electricity classified coming from the generators on the water flowing over the Sierra mountains that is pushed up there with NG or other fossil fuel?
Bullet Train to Nowhere? Let’s see this electric dream in action, but wait, it will be billions over-budget and years behind-schedule and waiting for a Democrat to get elected President and bail them out.
Not “will be”. It is already, without any tracks laid.
California always leads.
According to the article, it’s 7% of the system demand. It uses subsidies that will not likely hold for significant expansion to the 100% level. It’s just the power price, not the grid enhancements or grid support functions necessary to support the resource, let alone the significantly higher investments for expansions, additions and improvements to accommodate higher penetration levels. Then there is the question of whether it will perform as expected. I’ve seen many projects announced that project great things, but the key is what do you learn from the actual performance or the autopsy.
I hope it works, but I would not bet the farm on it.
mosher, above (see) predicts success. How that is possible in light of reality is, well, yet to be seen.
It’s LA LA land; land of fruits and nuts, so anything can happen.
“This is the lowest solar-photovoltaic price in the United States,” said James Barner, the agency’s manager for strategic initiatives …
…manager for strategic initiatives… ??
Sounds like the Peter Principal at work – one step above his competency level…..
Slight-of-hand accounting by the Californicators? Let’s try to compare apples-to-apples:
“Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries…
Crudely, Los Angeles can count on solar power generation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., said Louis Ting, director of power planning development at the agency. The batteries in this project effectively extend that horizon four hours, to 11 p.m…
A natural-gas plant opening that same year would produce power at more than twice the price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, or 4¢-4.3¢/kwh.”
Let’s roughly compare equivalent reliabilities of the two systems, to the extent possible:
How much will it cost to provide solar+battery power for just 24 hours, assuming perfect conditions?
Double? the cost of solar for 24 hours vs 12: 4 cents/kwh
Triple? the cost of storage from 4 hours to 12 hours: 3.9 cents/kwh
Total 8 cents / kwh ?
Now double? that again to get through one cloudy or rainy day.
Now multiply that times x? again to get through one cloudy or rainy week.
Then take that huge cost, whatever it is, and that is closer to the cost of solar+battery vs natural gas, but the natural gas generation will STILL be much more reliable and online 24/7.
If you don’t like my numbers, run your own, but don’t bias the results like those naughty Californicators did.
I work for a large international airport that installed its first solar power plant several years ago. The airport crowed in press releases about going “green”, and how this new source of “renewable” energy would lower the cost of electricity to the airport. The implication was that solar was not only “greener” than conventional electricity sources, but cheaper, too.
Well, you probably know much of the rest of the story: The plant never generates anywhere near its nameplate capacity, the solar tracking hardware is broken all the time, resulting in rows of panels pointing in a variety of different directions, it’s impossible to keep the panels consistently clean, etc. However, worse than all of those logistical problems are the outright lies that were used to sell this albatross in the first place.
First, even if operating at rated capacity (which it never does) the plant can only power a tiny fraction of the airport’s overall electricity needs. Second, the vaunted cost savings can only be asserted because the rest of us are paying the bill via subsidies. I have seen the initial cost-benefit analysis, and the consultant who prepared it clearly stated that the benefit derived would only exceed its cost due to federal subsidies. Without subsidies, the electricity from the plant would be far more expensive than that derived from conventional sources.
And the kicker is that the private company who built it conveniently declared bankruptcy and walked away right at the point where the federal subsidy expired, seven years after construction. This company suckered the airport into giving them what they could not easily or cheaply obtain otherwise, a large plot of land for free, in exchange for a small break on the cost of a tiny percentage of the airport’s electricity needs. And the airport eagerly jumped at the chance, primarily so that they could use the stupid thing to virtue signal.
Now though, they’re saddled with a broken-down installation, abandoned by its builder and previous operator, that barely works but is too expensive to dismantle. That doesn’t stop them, though, from continuing to lie about this utter failure by still citing it as some kind of environmental win.
Such is the story of most if not all of the “renewable” industry.
mosher, take note. Case example above.
“Such is the story of most if not all of the “renewable” industry.”
Why is one story for an unnamed airport proof that “most if not all” of renewable projects fail to meet promised results?
I worked at SMUD Same problems with their solar panels, dust, power output and constant replacement.
Chris, have you ever tried to get final cost, operating cost and actual production information on any of these projects announced with such fanfare? All kinds of claims made in advance but just try to find information post-construction. That should tell you something.
One project is not proof. The problem is that no solar power project has EVER shown a positive net present value not including subsidies.
Essentially, you are building a whole new infrastructure to slightly reduce the fuel costs of the existing infrastructure. At this point in time, solar power can not exist without the full current infrastructure (fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear).
Even if you do get a reduction in the marginal cost of electricity at certain times of day, it cannot return the investment required.