Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Los Angeles OKs a Deal For Record-Cheap Solar Power and Battery Storage (latimes.com) 142

Posted by msmash from the marching-forward dept.
For a long time, there were two big knocks against solar power: It's expensive, and it can't keep the lights on after sundown. A contract approved this week by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power shows how much that reality has changed. From a report: Under the 25-year deal with developer 8minute Solar Energy, the city would buy electricity from a sprawling complex of solar panels and lithium-ion batteries in the Mojave Desert of eastern Kern County, about two hours north of Los Angeles. The Eland project would meet 6% to 7% of L.A.'s annual electricity needs and would be capable of pumping clean energy into the grid for four hours each night. The combined solar power and energy storage is priced at 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour -- a record low for this type of contract, city officials and independent experts say, and cheaper than electricity from natural gas.

The Eland deal's approval was delayed last month after DWP staff said concerns had been raised by the union representing employees of the city-run utility. It wasn't clear whether the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18 had specific objections to the Eland project. But the union has been on the attack against L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti since his decision in February to shut down three natural-gas-fired power plants along the coast, which could force hundreds of union workers to transition to new jobs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Los Angeles OKs a Deal For Record-Cheap Solar Power and Battery Storage More

Los Angeles OKs a Deal For Record-Cheap Solar Power and Battery Storage

Comments Filter:

  • why do unions hate progress? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 13, 2019 @10:26AM (#59190716)
    the end goal really should be a facility that automatically can generate oodles of completely renewable power for next to nothing with very few or no human caretakers. This would be incredible progress and great for the human race and the planet as a whole. Unfortunately, from a Union standpoint, unless there is a requirement for hundreds of people to stand around, watch dials, press buttons, and eat donuts, it's a step backwards.

    Some people will say that coal-fired power plants are dinosaurs and need to go away. I would say that the Unions are that animal.

    • Some people will say that coal-fired power plants are dinosaurs and need to go away. I would say that the Unions are that animal.

      "Porque no los dos?" /Old El Paso

    • You do realize that looking out for their members' interests is why unions exist in the first place? Complaining about them trying to prevent job losses is like complaining that traffic lights slow down traffic.
      • Traffic lights slow down traffic, but for the purpose of smoothing traffic flow and increasing safety, making society as a whole - including the drivers who get slowed down - better off, net. Traffic lights generate a positive sum outcome - sure, some drivers are temporarily slowed, but in the long run they, and everyone are better off than if there were no traffic lights. It's far from clear the same can be said for Unions (or any group that "looks out for their members" as their sole goal). At best they

    • Unions exist to advocate for workers. They are a counterbalance to unchecked corporate power. How well they do their job varies just like politicians and corporate executives.

      To your main point I agree the goal of any facility is to produce what ever is needed (power, food, compute cycles, consumer goods, software) with an increasingly smaller number of workers and executives. If a project does not eliminate jobs, it is a failed project.

      The sooner we emulate the finance industry and divorce work from i

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by deKernel ( 65640 )

        Please explain how you "divorce work from income" because I don't see how you can have a sustainable system unless you do just the opposite.

        • investment returns divorces work from income. on the low end, it is your 401k. executive bonuses and stock allocations also divorce income from work (or some would say results). you get money for reasons disconnected from labor and most likely out of your control.

      • The sooner we emulate the finance industry and divorce work from income, the better off we will be as a society.

        If you think work and income in the finance industry are not related you have never worked in the finance industry. Folks in investment banking work legendarily long hours and it's not an easy lifestyle. If you want to criticize them for doing something that has questionable benefit to society (essentially gambling with other people's money) then I'm right with you. But make no mistake that people in the finance industry work very hard, even the shady ones.

        • we are close in views. you are right to point out that with finance workerbees work crazy hours but any money they is part earned and part unearned (bonuses). one could claim that the bonus is reward for making decisions that resulted in higher profits. I ask if their efforts have a real deterministic influence or are they throwing money at the wall (investments, deals, arbitrage, insider trading, price fixing) and hope more money comes back? Are their bonus (and their bosses bonuses) based on the myth of m

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        If a project does not eliminate jobs, it is a failed project

        What utter fucking nonsense. A project could improve efficiency, allowing greater work without needing new staff; successful project, no jobs eliminated.

        A project could introduce a new product line, requiring additional staff. Successful project, no jobs eliminated.

        A project could drastically reduce risk and losses, massively improving profitability through technology and process changes. Successful project, no jobs eliminated.

        The sooner we emulate the finance industry and divorce work from income

        As others have pointed out, people in the finance industry work hard. Most people

    • Unions are not always bad (Score:5, Informative)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday September 13, 2019 @11:43AM (#59191104)

      Some people will say that coal-fired power plants are dinosaurs and need to go away. I would say that the Unions are that animal.

      Really? You enjoying that health insurance? How about that 40 hour work week? Overtime? Safe working conditions? Not having to work as a child? You know all those things came because of unions... Just sayin' Maybe don't be so hasty to condemn unions so broadly.

      Unions are not inherently good or bad. Like most things they can be co-opted to bad ends but unions often serve as a very valuable check against abusive corporate practices and can make their members and even those who aren't members better off without negatively impacting the companies they work within. They certainly can and have protected some people who otherwise would have had very little protection from some pretty nasty management practices. Sure some unions have become a problem and a burden. But to pretend they serve no useful function anymore is to deny reality. I don't think you'd actually very much like to live in a world without them entirely.

      • Well said. I've always found it galling how people seem to forget that their forefathers in this country fought AND DIED for the right to unionize. Now they are so ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    • > Some people will say that coal-fired power plants are dinosaurs and need to go away. I would say that the Unions are that animal.

      And Corporate America thanks you for your service. Not with money of course, but with a smirk at how nice it is you're doing their dirtywork for them.

      As with anything some unions are good and some are bad. **On balance** society as a whole is better off with unions than not having them. America's overall prosperity was never higher than in the age of unions, but the right

    • If progress means bringing back indentured servitude, slavery if you like, then just say it.

  • Oh sure 8 minutes sounds good till someone comes along with 7 minute solar energy.

  • "reliable" power (Score:3)

    by harvey the nerd ( 582806 ) on Friday September 13, 2019 @10:57AM (#59190818)
    Great for southern CA until next volcano, typhoon, (sub)Carington event, or witching hour (4hr limit).

    It's sounds like progress, but LA's real cost cutting appears to be as much the union as much as the gas. If everything goes to plan, without further subsidies.

  • I dunno... is it me?

    If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand? Like, it's hard to deal with that stuff and it can't fulfill our needs properly, but sure, we'll sling you a few pence for it.

    If they needed it, they'd be paying more, wouldn't they? What are they paying the nuclear guys? How much of that is paid by subsidy or purely to get green credentials? (i.e. we'll buy your power for the carbon credits so we don't get fined more, but won'

    • Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Friday September 13, 2019 @11:21AM (#59190954)

      If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand?

      Computers are much, much cheaper than they were 30 years ago. That must be an indication that there isn't very much demand for them.

      As companies get better at producing something, or they scale their operations, it typically becomes cheaper for them to produce their products. Selling at lower prices is what attracts new customers and generates new business. It's scarcely surprising that this would happen in the energy sector or that it would apply to solar energy just as readily as other forms.

      Perhaps the only reasonable point you bring up is whether this is being subsidized or not, in which case it may not be cheaper than some alternativies.

    • If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand?

      It's cheap because it's cheap to produce. They're undercutting the other power producers.

      The power meets the spec for going onto the grid and given the nature of the power production, it's unlikely to be "dirty". It's not like a spinning part could get a bit out of sync when you don't have any spinning parts.

      If you've got some new physics where solar + battery somehow produces "bad" electricity, you should publish and collect your Nobel.

      If they needed it, they'd be paying more, wouldn't they?

      Are you operating under the illusion that there is a severe electrici

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        Way more. Several years ago they were paying something like 0.13 per kwh, but I haven't looked at any current deals. There's a reason the only nuclear plant in the area is shutting down.

        Are you talking about Diablo Canyon or San Onofre?

        AFAIK, Diablo Canyon isn't shutting down. San Onofre had major turbine issues and the plant was too old to fix.

      • If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand?

        It's cheap because it's cheap to produce. They're undercutting the other power producers.

        The power meets the spec for going onto the grid and given the nature of the power production, it's unlikely to be "dirty". It's not like a spinning part could get a bit out of sync when you don't have any spinning parts.

        If you've got some new physics where solar + battery somehow produces "bad" electricity, you should publish and collect your Nobel.

        If they needed it, they'd be paying more, wouldn't they?

        Are you operating under the illusion that there is a severe electricity shortage going on? 'Cause that hasn't been true since Enron created one a long time ago.

        They're paying less because they already had sufficient electricity, and a new competitor has to price themselves low enough to break in to the market.

        It's cheap for multiple reasons. The cheapest unsubsidized utility-scale solar for 2018 [lazard.com] was noted at 3.6 cents per kWh. For utility-scale solar + lithium storage [lazard.com] that cost is 10.6 cents per kWh. I wouldn't be surprised if Los Angels or California were subsidizing renewable energy sources though, as it's a pretty common thing to do.

        Timing issues also affects the low price of solar when compared to other energy sources, as solar plants have the pattern of producing a lot of electricity at the same time, durin

        • Nuclear in the US seems to gets very little in subsidies

          Only when you continue the fiction of waste disposal costing $0.

          That's a massive subsidy for nuclear power plants, since it costs a lot of money to make a 100,000-year storage location. But it's not a literal line item in a current annual budget, so people pretend it costs $0.

          • Nuclear in the US seems to gets very little in subsidies

            Only when you continue the fiction of waste disposal costing $0.

            That's a massive subsidy for nuclear power plants, since it costs a lot of money to make a 100,000-year storage location. But it's not a literal line item in a current annual budget, so people pretend it costs $0.

            Storage locations like Yucca Mountain?
            Yea, whatever happened to that place...?

          • Every nuclear plant has to put aside a certain percentage of revenues [nei.org] (dictated by the NRC) to cover storage and decommissioning costs. It's baked into the production costs. In fact, that's one of the big issues with the early decommissioning of Diablo Canyon - the costs of decommissioning will not be fully recouped because it's being terminated much too early (and the trust fund did not get a chance to fully capitalize).

            Do solar and wind farms also charge for decommissioning costs?

            • That only deals with short-term storage. Permanent storage was taken on by the federal government and is not funded by the plants.

              Do solar and wind farms also charge for decommissioning costs?

              Since they don't cost billions of dollars to do, there's no need to ensure the company doesn't skip out on it. 'Cause even if they do skip out, it's cheap to "decommission" a solar installation.

              • Permanent storage was funded by a surcharge on nuclear-generated power [wikipedia.org], meaning the nuclear plants were paying for it. Even though the vast majority of waste was military - not generation based. So the nuclear plants paid for short AND long term storage.

                So nuclear pays for decommissioning AND long-term storage. Yet solar and wind do not pay for any decommissioning. Seems they're getting a nice, free ride...

                • Permanent storage was funded by a surcharge on nuclear-generated power [wikipedia.org], meaning the nuclear plants were paying for it.

                  They were charged a fee that doesn't come anywhere near to the long-term costs. Hence, short-term.

                  Yet solar and wind do not pay for any decommissioning. Seems they're getting a nice, free ride.

                  Decommissioning a nuclear power plant costs $4 billion. (Diablo Canyon forecast). How much do you think it costs to "decommission" a solar plant?

                  Hint: It doesn't reach millions.

                  • They were charged a fee that doesn't come anywhere near to the long-term costs. Hence, short-term.

                    Citation needed, because that is directly opposed to the link I provided.

                    Decommissioning a nuclear power plant costs $4 billion. (Diablo Canyon forecast).

                    Yes, and it was to be paid for by a fund from operation. Shutting down early runs the risk the fund may not have enough money. But it was paying for itself.

                    How much do you think it costs to "decommission" a solar plant?

                    Hint: It doesn't reach millions.

                    Citation needed - and you need hundreds of such plants to equal one nuclear power plant.

    • If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand?

      Electrons are electrons. Nobody buying them cares how they were generated and there is no difference between them. So if they are paying a cheap price it's because it's cheap to produce or someone is subsidizing it. Has nothing to do with lack of demand.

      If they needed it, they'd be paying more, wouldn't they?

      Only if that was the only available option and demand exceeded supply. Adding supply tends to depress prices, not raise them.

      And if the cheapest price is being paid - how profitable is that solar plant?

      Can't say but it has nothing to do with the price being paid. The amount you pay for something and what it costs to make it are

    • I dunno... is it me?

      If they are paying the cheapest-ever price, is that an indication that such power isn't very much in demand?

      No, its an indication that this is just a vaporware project, with an agreement that doesn't commit them to actually build unless PV and storage prices get low enough.

  • Great government deal, One does wonder? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Friday September 13, 2019 @11:26AM (#59190988)
    "25-year deal with developer 8minute Solar Energy" if the deal collapses/fails closer to 25-years from now or 8 minutes?

    Just my 2 cents ;)
  • This is the future, where renewables are WAY cheaper than fossil fuels. If I understand correctly, the cost of renewables is projected to keep sinking for a long, long time. There's a limit, but the floor isn't anywhere in sight. All these energy companies that fight like hell to maintain their oil profits run a HUGE risk of waking up in a decade or two and finding that their product is obsolete - surpassed by something better that's been developed and produced by other companies that had a tad more foresi

    • The solar panels are the future. The batteries, not so much. Who signed off on this and why didn't they shove it back in their faces?

      Producing lithium batteries is ...not easy. It's resource-constrained on lithium. Besides that, it's expensive as hell.

      So on one hand you have natural gas. You're going to use more natural gas during the day, store electricity in batteries, and then use less natural gas at night. Why not just use more natural gas at night and less during the day, and skip the loss of

      • Is adiabatic so important ? I would have thought that finding a source of heat in Southern Cal would be relatively easy, even if you piped the cold expanding air through pipes sunk into a pond that had been warming in the sun all day, or even used it for AC in local houses. And making use of heat to do something useful when you have an over-abundance of it seems feasible too.

        • Yes, because the storage can be like, hugely hot. It can be gigawatt-hours of energy and contribute tens of megawatts of power.

      • The solar panels are the future. The batteries, not so much.

        This is the present, where we live.

        So on one hand you have natural gas. You're going to use more natural gas during the day, store electricity in batteries, and then use less natural gas at night. Why not just use more natural gas at night and less during the day, and skip the loss of battery storage?

        The batteries can charge from solar during the day, and the nuclear base load that so many slashdotters love so well at night. More natgas means more fracking. Californians are not pro-fracking.

        • They aren't eliminating all natural gas yet. The solar isn't supplying 100% of power during the day. That means by charging batteries during the day, rather than simply slowing down natural gas burn, you're losing energy and burning more natural gas.

          They also have hydro that's acting as pumped hydro (they had to dump a lot of excess pumped hydro a couple years ago in Washington), which is storage.

          Batteries are the worst form of storage, second only to mainsprings.

    • Same goes for the car companies that pin their entire business on pickup trucks that get 11 mpg. Lookin at you, most American car makers. The American manufacturers are going to go through another dark ages where they find themselves 15 years behind the competition. This happened in the 70's and 80's where US cars were absolute crap because the US companies had gotten SUPER complacent.

      This did happen in the 70s and 80s, but it's not going to happen now, because the US companies are producing their vehicles all over the world, and/or they aren't really US companies any more. Granted, GM pulled out of Europe, and that's a thing, but they haven't stopped making advanced vehicles (nor have they pulled out of China.) As part of FCA, Chrysler isn't really American any more. While they are primarily selling Jeeps, pickups, and muscle cars here in the US, their full-sized van is now a Fiat, and

  • California needs to replace all those vineyards with solar farms. Making wine? What a waste of space.

    • California needs to replace all those vineyards with solar farms. Making wine? What a waste of space.

      I am not a wine drinker, but I recognize that lots of people like it. I don't like sour beer either, but that seems to be the hip shit now. If I wanted sour booze... I'd drink wine.

      However, warming is making Napa county weather less desirable for grapes, and production is heading north (immediately to Lake county, but also to Oregon) so maybe they should do some upscale housing developments with mixed solar.

    • The wine industry does live under an umbrella of sanctimony. Legislators love land, money, tourism, and alcohol. Tourists love scenery and alcohol. With that acknowledged, you seem to be ignorant of regional ground truth. Much of the hoity-toity grape agriculture is on rolling to quite steep hillsides, not vast tracts of flat barren desert. Much of the region has week after week when marine layer cloud cover does not dissipate until mid-day. Winter storm season often brings 3-day intervals with buckets

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        vast tracts of flat barren desert

        I love driving through the Mojave desert. It's a fantastic place, and far far nicer than fucking vineyards. I've driven through them on three continents and they've never remotely the Mojave, the Sahara or the Australian Outback.

        I hope they hide these shitty solar farms well out of sight.

    • Why cover the fertile parts with panels when there's massive deserts?

      • well, a lot of the "fertile parts" are just desert made to grow from aquifer water... of course, desalinating ocean water would be a perfect solar application too

    • California needs to replace all those vineyards with solar farms. Making wine? What a waste of space.

      Right, because nothing says "green" like acres of aluminum, glass, concrete, and steel.

      I'm thinking that this fascination with solar power is going to get us all killed.

  • I wonder what the solar company is paying for panels.

    $0.033 / kw hr / 1000 watthours / kw hr * 365.25 days / year * 5 solar hr / day ~= $0.0603 / panel watt year.

    At $0.33 / panel watt that's about 5 1/2 years production to pay back just buying the panels.

    Yeah, it's in the ballpark of a viable business, at current interest rates and with panels that last 20 years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close