Tesla, Australia to turn 50,000 homes into power generators

February 4, 2018
South Australia plans to partner again with Elon Musk's Tesla which has already built the world's largest battery in the state

Some 50,000 homes in South Australia will receive solar panels and Tesla batteries, the state government announced Sunday, in a landmark plan to turn houses into a giant, interconnected power plant.

South Australia is already home to world's biggest battery in an Elon Musk-driven project to provide electricity for more than 30,000 homes.

The state government has since been looking for more ways—particularly through renewables—to address its energy woes after an "unprecedented" storm caused a state-wide blackout in 2016.

Under a new plan unveiled on Sunday, a network of linked to rechargeable batteries will be provided free to households and financed by the sale of excess electricity generated by the network, the government said.

"My government has already delivered the world's biggest battery, now we will deliver the world's largest ," state Premier Jay Weatherill said in a statement.

"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefitting with significant savings in their energy bills."

A trial phase will begin with 1,100 public housing properties, each supplied with a 5kW solar panel system Tesla battery.

Following the trial, the systems will be installed at a further 24,000 public housing properties before the scheme is opened up to other South Australians over the next four years.

The government is also set to look for an energy retailer to deliver the programme to add more competition to the market.

The rollout will be supported by the state government through a Aus$2 million (US$1.6 million) grant and a Aus$30 million loan from a taxpayer renewable technology fund.

Tesla said in a statement to AFP that the virtual power plant would have 250 megawatts of solar energy and 650 megawatt hours of battery storage.

"At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant," the company added.

Australia is one of the world's largest producers of coal and gas but the South Australian blackout raised questions about its energy security.

Several ageing coal-fired have closed, while strong demand for gas exports and a rise in onshore gas drilling bans have fuelled concerns of a looming domestic shortage in the next few years.

More than 60 percent of electricity generation in Australia is from coal, with 14 percent from renewables, according to data published in 2016.

Explore further: Musk's record-breaking battery officially launches in Australia

Related Stories

Tesla's enormous battery amazes in quick outage response

December 30, 2017

Tesla Motors' grid storage battery in South Australia, switched on at just the beginning of December, has already shown it is up to the job of serving as a backup system in South Australia. Its quick response is the stuff ...

Recommended for you

Under-fire Apple removes 25,000 apps in China

August 20, 2018

Apple said Monday it had removed many gambling-related apps from its Chinese app store as the US giant comes under scrutiny amid trade tensions between Beijing and Washington.

Robots as tools and partners in rehabilitation

August 17, 2018

In future decades, the need for effective strategies for medical rehabilitation will increase significantly, because patients' rate of survival after diseases with severe functional deficits, such as a stroke, will increase. ...

Security gaps identified in internet protocol IPsec

August 15, 2018

In collaboration with colleagues from Opole University in Poland, researchers at Horst Görtz Institute for IT Security (HGI) at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB) have demonstrated that the internet protocol IPsec is vulnerable ...

142 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2018
Tesla said in a statement to AFP that the virtual power plant would have 250 megawatts of solar energy and 650 megawatt hours of battery storage.


Peak, or average?
SamB
not rated yet Feb 04, 2018
Tesla said in a statement to AFP that the virtual power plant would have 250 megawatts of solar energy and 650 megawatt hours of battery storage.


Peak, or average?


Your comment? (Low)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2018
The state government has since been looking for more ways—particularly through renewables—to address its energy woes after an "unprecedented" storm caused a state-wide blackout in 2016.

Why do people (and particularly governments) always need a wake-up call before something happens? Can't we ever act in a way to prevent foreseeable issues?
unrealone1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2018
Adelaide need about 2000 MW per hour at peak, so the battery will last?
TopCat22
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
Absolutely Brilliant!
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2018
The math makes no sense at all. How can you possibly give away much of your product for free and have enough left over to pay for the project? Also, let's just assume for the moment that this is possible. Why would you distribute the project over many homes i.e. many small projects when one or two large projects would be much cheaper to build and maintain?

Musk has just figured out how to suck even more taxpayer money into his corporate coffers and forward the cause of crony capitalism. The sad part is that the green establishment will cheer this as a great advance even though many of them have advanced educations and are able to do the basic math that proves this to be another hoax. As usual they will refuse to utter one negative word about the project.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
I might be wrong here but "excess electricity" means to me the power that is left over after the home has been powered.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2018
Adelaide gets an average of 8 hours of sunshine per day - 2774 hours per year - https://www.curre...rage.php

This one project will allow 50,000 homes to meet most of their electricity needs - without fossil fuels. Sure - they will still need to be grid connected - but surely the big point is how much coal this will displace. Baby steps - but we are on the road to eliminating coal - and eventually all fossil fuels.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
" but surely the big point is how much coal this will displace. "

Onions I call a big BS on that one.

It just proves my point that people that can do the math will refuse to do so.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2018
http://joannenova...-12-now/

Australia will continued to be raped for as long as it takes for them to wake up and smell the hoax.
notarobot
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2018
Once again, Mr Musk has proven that social governmental systems and capitalism can work just fine together. You don't have to rape the economy like the oil corps and banks have done, just provide affordable, quality services for reasonable cost.

Turning homes into resources for the homeowners, instead of money pits is pure genius...with this project providing both proofs of concept and great product advertising to boot...he could probably give it away and still turn a profit from the residual good will 8^)
greenonions1
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
MR
Onions I call a big BS on that one.
and as usual - you provide no reasoning, or support for your grand assertion.

http://www.abc.ne.../9271564

So where is your support for your grand assertion of BS MR?

I said that this one project alone will allow 50,000 homes to provide most of their electricity needs without fossil fuels. Mackita - where is the error in my math? What math did I get wrong? Please give specifics.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2018
The increase in cost of electricity experienced by the Australian consumer - is not due to renewable energy. The situation is complex - but here is a pretty clear analysis - http://www.abc.ne.../8979860

In terms of the green schemes, they do have a cost but it is a relatively small cost," he said.

"Gas is the biggest single fact at this point in time.
MR166
2.9 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2018
Onions my math question was about the ability of the plan to pay for itself when most of the electricity is given to the homeowner. Also, why make it a distributed system when this will increase the cost of the system by a huge amount? I am not questioning that fact that the system displaces coal.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2018
I can understand your worries - but it will take some time before people finally realize, that the whole solar economy consumes more fossil fuels on background than it actually replaces.

I think your sources on that are out of date...by about half a century.
Eikka
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
I can understand your worries - but it will take some time before people finally realize, that the whole solar economy consumes more fossil fuels on background than it actually replaces.

I think your sources on that are out of date...by about half a century.


The high subsidy prices paid to keep the solar economy going is causing indirect energy consumption, because the money needs to be generated through economic activity, which means consumption of other energy and resources.

As the solar power itself is not sufficiently valuable to cover what is being paid for it, the missing value must be coming from fossil fuels.

After all, in a modern service economy, most of the money earned is due to someone consuming something - like spending electricity to brew a latte to be served to a paying customer, which is then taxed to pay the subsidy for the electricity used to boil the water. Notice how this doesn't actually replace the value of the electricity.
Eikka
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2018
The problem is that money isn't value itself. It's just a symbol for value, so whenever you generate X amount of solar power and get paid Y amount of money for it, where X < Y, it means you were just given a permission to consume more value than you produced.

And as the subsidy is paid, so it happens - the people who get the money spend it, they end up consuming whatever they produce, and then some, meaning the whole thing is a net energy SINK.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2018
It is important to separate out the issues.
1. MR supplied a link that blamed Australia's high energy prices on renewable energy.

This is bullshit.
Green energy initiatives contribute just 16 per cent to the recent price hikes
From - http://www.abc.ne.../8979860

I could list dozens of sources that discuss the complexity of the situation in Australia - and recognize that it is flat wrong to blame the high cost of electricity solely on renewables.

2. Fossil fuels create way more pollution, and green house gasses than renewables. While we currently get most of our power from fossils - if we are concerned about climate change, and pollution - we must wean ourselves off them.

3. Distributed vs centralized. The free market cultists are so in favor of competition - until it is in the energy industry. Odd thing that. Going totally off grid is still not feasible for most of us (perhaps never will be) cont.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2018
cont. - So we are in the process of developing a hybrid system. The big difference here will be competition. I will be able to have solar panels installed by a local contractor - but still connect to a grid. We will have to work out the pricing issues here - as the grid operator will need to be paid. 2 big advantages here. The grid operator will be incentivized to supply me with cheaper electricity than I can produce myself - and thus keep my business. Also - a distributed system will be far more resilient. Win win.

Biggest winner is the environment - no more coal.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Onions Australia has very high peaking power prices due to the shutting down of coal plants. So what is left that caused the huge increase in rates. Wires and poles eh.

http://joannenova...tioners/

The fact is that the government closed down too many plants and created shortages which increased the rates for all.

Whenever a Progressive plan does not work out it is never their fault !!!
MR166
3 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2018
Coal plants were made uneconomical by regulations that forced their demise. The renewables that replace them led to blackouts and huge peak power costs.
greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2018
RM107
The area required
If you put them on top of houses - as this project is going to do - that is not an issue is it?

Is this being pushed by do-good, feel-good, left-wing, meddling liberals?
And opposed by Conservatives - who don't give a shit about the environment, or competition, or progress, or new technology, or mountain top removal, or toxic air - https://www.usato...0846584/
or poor people who have to live with toxic coal ash tips - https://www.scien...hardest/ etc. etc. etc.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
50,000 homes to meet most of their electricity needs
Why you people cannot even calculate? USA inhabitants consume 4,310 MW/person, 250 megawatts is just fracture of their needs. 250 megawatts for 50,000 homes means 5 kWatts per home (battery backup for three hours) -mackita/Zephir

4,310 MW/person is clearly in error. The numeric value has apparently come from the annual usage in kWh, Zephir has simply slipped in the wrong units. 4310 kWh/year = 492 watts. 492 watts * 2.54 people/household = 1250 watts/home. 250 Mw/1250 watts/home = 200,000 homes. Considering that 1250 watts is an annual average, usage at 5:30 PM on a hot summer day may be considerably higher, hence the 4x usage factor (200,000 homes/50,000 homes). Item #1 on Zephir's list should be learning the difference between energy and power.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
RM107
Which is exactly the point I made
Apologies - I did not read carefully enough.

Understand your adversaries
Why does it have to be about adversaries? Perhaps because Conservatives say shit like this -
Is this being pushed by do-good, feel-good, left-wing, meddling liberals
The reason I triggered - is because I am sick and tired of that kind of shit. I am definitely a leftie - but I believe in small government, a free/democratic system, science, truth, and most of all a philosophy that cares about others, and the earth we live on. Conservatives seem generally to be bankrupt morally - not concerned about their fellow humans, or the environment. All the science tells us that C02/climate change is a huge cause for concern. But you can dismiss all the science - cuz you know better.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2018
mackita
It must be subsidized and pushed by Musk and governement
All sources of electricity are subsidized. Why should renewables suddenly be denied subsidies - when they are trying to compete in a world of subsidies?

http://thehill.co...and-coal
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2018
@MR166 and @mackita.

Both of you seem to be 'stuck' in vested-interest-generated propaganda based on obsolete/biased very-half-truths based 'arguments' which ignore the whole picture/costs involved with coal etc; for example:

- you omit the huge subsidies given to cal/fossil while decrying any subsidies for renewables!

- you miss the fact that aging coal fired plants are being closed for private company economic reasons; ie, too costly to maintain, and being outcompeted by renewables!

- as for THIS project, the free panels/batteries, as well as the power generated/stored, is NOT 'owned' by the participating householders!

The power is sold back to them at whatever price is FAIR and REASONABLE for BOTH the participating householders AND the company. So BOTH/ALL 'profit': company gets a return; householder gets power security at a stable and reasonable cost; AND state/environment and GRID benefits; and peak demand periods (hours) can be covered!

Win Win Win Win! :)
carbon_unit
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
It will be very interesting to see how this works out for the Australians. It does seem to be the desired way to do things in the future; distributed power generation with the grid for backup and load equalization.

Meanwhile, back in the USA: "Beautiful, clean coal!"
The conservatives repeatedly accused the Obama administration of leading from behind.
The conservatives are leading us TO behind.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2018
@carbon_unit.
It will be very interesting to see how this works out for the Australians. It does seem to be the desired way to do things in the future; distributed power generation with the grid for backup and load equalization.

Meanwhile, back in the USA: "Beautiful, clean coal!"
The conservatives repeatedly accused the Obama administration of leading from behind.
The conservatives are leading us TO behind.
Yes, that's what happens when 'conservative' political power (born, perpetuated through greed, ignorance and exploitation instead of reason and science) fools enough voters to 'steal' political power and sabotages anything that threatens their profiteering/damaging 'business model'.

NB: these particular Australians are in ONE STATE governed by LABOR; NOT by the FEDERAL 'conservatives' (Liberals-Nationals) COALITION which governs the FEDERATION of states (and which under, first ABBOT, now TURNBULL, have been following the US 'conservatives' (GOP) 'playbook'.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
@mackita.
See my post above. In 2011, coal exports were Australia's second-largest source of export income,...
That is a separate issue of responsibility for and contribution to, ongoing GLOBAL CO2 emissions. The people are trying to minimize such irresponsible, damaging and 'false economy' coal exports 'business' (especially from 'dirty' coal fields); and 'false economy' because (eg, Adani Project) demand BILLIONS in subsidies/loans etc which could be BETTER invested in CLEAN RENEWABLES instead).
Australians have lot of sun and free space and also money from their coal - so that they can afford some lithium batteries and solar cells.
That's not the point: renewables should ONLY be implemented where they CAN DO the job better/cheaper/cleaner etc than fossil. GLOBALLY. The AIM is to have a MIX of BOTH renewable (majority) AND fossil (minority---except where renewables insufficient etc).

See? The AIM: reduce CO2 emissions OVERALL to HALT catastrophic TREND. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
@mackita.
For example, how is it possible, that https://www.youtu...i3m50sA. But how is it possible, it's not widely researched and published in mainstream media, after then? Because of Ponzi scheme of "renewables" and their lobbyists.
Where have you BEEN, mate?! The overall thrust and technology/feasibility etc detatils and parameters HAVE been published all over the world in news/science 'outlets'! It's just that the US and AUSTRALIAN 'conservative' media has been MISREPRESENTING and BURYING it in 'manufactured controversy' and 'false facts' CAMPAIGNS! Apparently they are 'getting their money's worth' if they have FOOLED even someone whose scientific intellect and fair reading I have always treated 'as a given' (until you make these patently unscientific and illogical and biased fossil/GOP etc 'propaganda perpetuating posts). I expect better of you, mate; which is why I have always treated you with respect and fairness at all times. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
@mackita.
renewables should ONLY be implemented where they CAN DO the job better/cheaper/cleaner etc than fossils
But where such a place is supposed to be? Even the solar plants in Arizona or California which are full of Sun and free space http://www.latime...y-solar/
The BENEFITS extend further than immediate 'money profit' (social, safety, jobs, environment, economy, security, long term sustainability, etc etc). And what do you COMPARE that to? Is it the HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED yet damaging FOSSIL "industry" from MINE to BURN? No contest....if you're not biased/fooled by Fossil/GOP propaganda!

Mate, I suggest you rethink everything you think you 'know' about these issues; and include EVERYTHING important rather than 'conveniently' omitting many; and please do stop pretending that fossil is not subsidized, or that we are not paying for its damage in many ways that SOCIETY/GOVERMENT 'absorbs' the HIGH COSTS of, ok?

Be fair, objective. :)
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
@mackita.
The overall thrust and technology/feasibility etc detatils and parameters HAVE been published all over the world in news/science 'outlets'
Huh? Show me a single link... ;-)
Again, where have you been, mate? The MANY variations-on-the-theme have been outlined and reported on and discussed for years now. This particular 'variation' is just ONE of the many solar-battery 'systems' possible depending on local needs/conditions. Even gkam and I have long ago pointed out, linked and discussed the benefits of some of the many possible setups. Don't play the same 'games' which that troll gang have been playing in order to distract from the substantive issue/point, mate, for that would be betraying everything you have been trying to achieve in the area of objectivity and scientific INTEGRITY. If you lose that by going 'the way of the troll gang' here, then you will lose ALL credibility with me, mate. Try to stop and rethink re these issues, mate. Good luck. :)
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2018
As usual, South Australia feels like it's in another Australia and a better one at that. This is what happens when you vote for progressive politicians willing to put vested interests aside for the public good.

Also, to clarify some of the misinformation in the comments above: South Australia was already embracing renewables. This was not entirely driven by the blackouts, that just provided them extra impetus to move faster. The blackouts were caused by a failure of traditional infrastructure in the face of climate-change enhanced storms. It's not surprising they moved much more aggressively to bypass that creaking, ancient grid.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
Mackita
Just a single link


That's all? As Reality check points out - this is old news.

Here's just one for you - https://cleantech...s-chile/

Oh look - 6.3 cents Kwh - when Hinkley Point is going to rape the British tax payers for 12 cents a Kwh - inflation adjusted - starting in 2025. You really are uninformed.
ddaye
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2018
Can't we ever act in a way to prevent foreseeable issues?
I assume you mean the US. We have a Constitutional system designed to resist that kind of foresight by being biased toward doing nothing. Beyond that we have single party government in most of the country of US conservatives who intend to get government out of most roles it presently plays in society. Furthermore, major fossil fuel producers are among the most influential spenders and organizers in US politics, and they have been working to increase fossil carbon energy use while reducing the attractiveness of renewable energy. So for the case of the US, at this time the answer is definitely "no we can't."
AlohaMilton
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2018
the bots need updating, every darn thing has solar now, backpacks charge phones, purses charge... phones. ok it's mostly phones and camera batteries for (insert any outdoor activity here), but no one is scared or confused anymore and gets that its free power after the initial investment.

I feel like the 'conversation' as it were is over, sadly just the bots remain to be updated, still arguing solar is somehow more costly than continuing to buy oil gas and coal. Most of the industry is onboard and gets that this then allows more development and more use of whatever energy anyone can provide, if housing can support itself suddenly there is more room for more housing, which then needs more industry. Oh look some extra energy since housing is doing better! so then some clean coal tech gets implemented. the bots here are just really out of date, argue that humans should live in caves and burn wood.

Thorium Boy
1 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2018
Still doesn't change the fact it's $50,000 per house and upkeep for the panels.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2018
Still doesn't change the fact it's $50,000 per house and upkeep for the panels.

Interesting what goes as 'fact' these days in your mind. Maybe you should check your basic math skills.
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
Rather First Make a 3-d Printer To print out a Solar Array and GLUE IT To the Nearest Asteroid; Once it finishes its job of enveloping it with the printed out array, we can think of relaying the Trapped Energy back to Earth !
https://www.youtu...BbjU4IyA
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2018
mackita
you should also know, which business you're actually supporting


And you are disparaging electric cars - but supporting oil, gas, and coal.

https://www.googl...;bih=769

https://earthjust...r-health

https://www.googl...j5iN3_q0
MR166
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
OK I don't see where the 50K/home comes from. It is more like $29,000/home plus maintenance costs including battery replacement in 12 years and cleaning of the panels or some factor that takes dirt into account.

Here is the challenge to the projects supporters on this board. Lets assume 3% interest and a 24 year lifetime. Calculate the cost/kwh of the power delivered by the project.

I double dog dare you to provide the numbers seeing how you are all so smart and such great mathematicians.

I did not fail to notice that the article also failed to provide the real numbers. Is this a symptom of being a green progressive?

MR166
1 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
What people fail to realize is that fact that articles like this reflect poorly on all of climate science. Once liars are given comfort by a certain group all of the groups other statements come into question.
Merrit
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2018
@mac your arguments make no sense and you propose non existent technology as a solution. You seem to be falling for the propaganda put out there by the oil companies. The cigarette companies used the same tactics back in the day. People are naturally pretty dumb and easily fooled.

You attack renewable for subsidies and maintenance costs when all energy sources have these. As for harm to the earth their is a distinct difference between the two. Solar panels do not give off any waste unlike fossil fuels. The construction and installation costs change over time and currently they are relatively equal.
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2018
@mac your arguments make no sense and you propose non existent technology as a solution. You seem to be falling for the propaganda put out there by the oil companies. The cigarette companies used the same tactics back in the day. People are naturally pretty dumb and easily fooled.

You attack renewable for subsidies and maintenance costs when all energy sources have these. As for harm to the earth their is a distinct difference between the two. Solar panels do not give off any waste unlike fossil fuels. The construction and installation costs change over time and currently they are relatively equal.


To put it bluntly, Mackita is a low intelligence dumb ass. Made the ignore list today.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2018
Tesla batteries do not replace fossil fuels, they are complementary, i.e., provide "greenwashing" for coal and gas.
https://www.brigh...petition
"Those that believe 100% RE is possible, should try it at home: disconnect from the grid and buy enough panels and batteries..."
"Wind turbines. Built with fossil fuels, operated with fossil fuels and backed up with fossil fuels. The only green thing about them is the ignorance of those who support them."
Merrit
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
@willieward when your whole economy is based on fossil fuels it is impossible to move away from them in one step. By investing in renewable power sources you can cut down your dependence in one area. But there are areas like transportation and construction that use a lot of fossil fuels as well. Luckily their are electric versions of everything that we could eventually switch too. It is theoretically possible to be 100% fossil free here on earth and would be the ideal. The biggest short coming of renewable power sources, however, is you don't have control over their production like other sources. I would support renewable with nuclear power. Nuclear waste is bad, but is containable unlike co2
leetennant
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2018
And you are disparaging electric cars - but supporting oil, gas, and coal
I do support the overunity, cold fusion research - not these obsolete stuffs... My main problem with solar plants actually is, they increase the consumption of all these ones - not the solar panels as such. It's not a substitution of fossils, but a promotion of fossils fuels.


I just don't understand why we aren't utilising unicorn rainbow farts instead
betterexists
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Rather First Make a 3-d Printer To print out a Solar Array and GLUE IT To the Nearest Asteroid

Start with the Smallest, Nearest Asteroid....Then Scale it up ! Knowledge is always gained incrementally !
Animals were the SAME Million Years Ago, Today AND will be the SAME Million Years After also.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2018
MR
Lets assume 3% interest and a 24 year lifetime. Calculate the cost/kwh of the power delivered by the project
As usual - you can't do any thinking for yourself - just chuck around insults at "progressives". Well I did the work for you.

From this site - http://ourenergyp...er-plant Question 14 tells us that the total project cost is $800 million.

50K homes - means the per home cost will be $16,000.

S. Australia gets around 3K hours of sunshine a year. - https://www.curre...rage.php

5Kw system would therefor generate 15,000 KWh of electricity each year.

$16,000 over 12 years would cost you $1,589 per year at 3%

That would run you about 11 cents a Kwh. Considering electricity is costing around 32 cents U.S. a Kwh in Australia - that is a pretty smart deal. The panels will probably last more like 25 years - so this is a VERY conservative estimate.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2018
Nuclear waste is bad, but is containable...
Bury it in my backyard. It emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas, and has killed no one. It's safer than mercury(teratogen) in coal ashes and arsenide and other chemical carcinogens present in solar panels that never lose their toxicity with time.
https://pbs.twimg...XC-4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...NTAV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jmtY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...zrxW.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...N5us.jpg
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
@mackita.
Thailand prime minister [Prayut Chan-o-cha](https://en.wikipe...o-cha)).
For security reasons my customized browser won't open the graphenergy and reddit links. Could you please give me some technical/science info/explanation regarding what exactly is the energy source involved and how that is transformed into motive mechanical power for that bike? Sorry I have to log out now; but will be in again tomorrow if I can to see your replies. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2018
@WillieWard.
Nuclear waste is bad, but is containable...
Bury it in my backyard. It emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas, and has killed no one. It's safer than mercury(teratogen) in coal ashes and arsenide and other chemical carcinogens present in solar panels that never lose their toxicity with time.
https://pbs.twimg...XC-4.jpg
I was about to log out, and refreshed the page just in case, then saw this tired old propaganda spiel ignoring all the factors.

Consider:

You already have natural background level of exposure (be it from granite, bananas or whatever). The whole problem with NEW sources/exposure due to Uranium mining, refining, and spent Nuclear Plant fuel, operational/storage leaks etc IS EXTRA LAD n your physiological/DNA 'repair and maintenance' processes. There is the real danger; nt the natural background with which we have evolved to cope with and compensate for over millions of years. Understand now, Willie? Bye. :)
greenonions1
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2018
Willie the liar
It emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas
So then why do we have to store it in a steel lined concrete pool - filled with water? https://www.nei.o...ear-Fuel

Spent fuel is thermally hot as well as highly radioactive and requires remote handling and shielding
Do your bananas have to be kept in steel lined concrete containers - and covered in water Willie? Is Yucca Mountain being designed to store bananas Willie? Do you ever tire of being a liar?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
Onions I based my calculations on the facts presented in the article ($29K/house) and the following statement.

"Under a new plan unveiled on Sunday, a network of solar panels linked to rechargeable batteries will be provided free to households and financed by the sale of excess electricity generated by the network, the government said."

"Excess" in this case I took to mean power that exceeds the amount used by the average household. Journalists should know the meaning of each word that they use in their articles.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
Onions your link said that the homeowner would get 30% off of their bill thus pay about 14 cents /KWH. Now if the power is generated at 11 cents /KWH that does leave a lot of room for a profit and for this plan to actually work. Thanks for the explanation. My calculations using the info provided in the article showed a cost of at least 19 cents/KWH with a lite time of 24 years and it excluded all maintenance.

The bottom line is can the system be installed in larger quantities for 16K/home and how often do the panels need to be cleaned in order to remain at say 85% efficiency.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2018
The whole problem with NEW sources/exposure due to Uranium mining, refining...
"By far the largest collective dose to workers per unit of electricity generated was found in the solar power cycle, followed by the wind power cycle. The reason for this is that these technologies require large amounts of rare earth metals, and the mining of low-grade ore exposes workers to natural radionuclides during mining."
http://www.unscea...4696.pdf
http://mzconsulti...m/?p=846
"Nuclear energy - the only energy whose industry takes full responsibility for its waste"
"2000 Tons of radioactive sludge created for 1 ton of rare-earth neodymium magnet"
https://www.youtu...Q_6fuGNI
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part One"
https://www.youtu...vIzH2W6g
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part Two"
https://www.youtu...dQQsxiq0
"Used Nuclear Fuel - Part Three"
https://www.youtu...ZMxf_kZg
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
Rather First Make a 3-d Printer To print out a Solar Array and GLUE IT To the Nearest Asteroid ;
"Wireless energy generation for future electronic gadgets". Wireless applications of the W-TENG are abundant, extending into resource-limited settings, such as in outer space or the middle of the Ocean !
http://newsstand....gadgets/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2018
MR166 - the numbers are very approximate - I was just responding to your asshole double dare bullshit. You are not capable/willing to do your own googling - but always happy to throw insults at your progressive boogeymen. The point is that given the high cost of electricity in Australia - this is clearly a very viable project - and will almost certainly be a big part of Australia bringing down it's power prices - by introducing competition and renewables into their system. Someone has obviously yanked on liar Willies chain - and the lies from your side of the aisle are spewing forth. Willie prefers 12 cents Kwh power from Hinkley point - inflation indexed for the next 60 years. By that time wind and solar will be measured in Kwh per cent. Yes MR I am a progressive - meaning I am interested in progress. Honesty is also a nice throw in.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2018
...

The bottom line is can the system be installed in larger quantities for 16K/home and how often do the panels need to be cleaned in order to remain at say 85% efficiency.

If it's everyday, bingo - you have kids!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2018
@mackita.

I had some time for a break this evening s came back in to see what transpired over the 7 hours since I logged out. So, briefly in re your reply (thanks):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFgEdH3VKHM. Just some graphite, sand and polymer binder...
Again, my customized browser is refusing to open links for security reasons, so could you please just briefly outline exactly what the principles/reactions involved are, and etc? Will look in again tomorrow. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2018
@MR166.
Now if the power is generated at 11 cents /KWH that does leave a lot of room for a profit and for this plan to actually work. Thanks for the explanation. My calculations using the info provided in the article showed a cost of at least 19 cents/KWH with a lite time of 24 years and it excluded all maintenance.
It's more than just straight return/profit involved. Apart from the environmental benefits accruing to SA/globe from clean and CO2-free power supply, the availability of 'excess' power for the company to sell to customers OTHER THAN the households in the scheme per se, as well as access to PEAK demand power from the batteries for the GRID in emergency periods, means the company profits AND the community benefits even more. So, when comparing with usual Fossil systems/costs/profits etc, you need to include ALL the benefits/savings/profits for Renewables I just outlined (and more besides). Cheers. :)
TimC_Syd
3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2018
The real cost per kWh is around 40c ($400/MWh), TCO for 10years. Another $800M for <10% of SA grid protection. The sky-high market prices for peak power over summer could have paid for half the cost of a new coal power station. This solar+battery is 5x the cost of coal.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
Tim
The real cost per kWh is around 40c
No it is not. Just making up numbers does not make them correct. The panels will last for 25 years. We don't know the life expectancy of the batteries - but they are warrantied for 10 years. New build coal plants are not running 4 cents. Try 8 cents -
The average lifetime cost of producing power with ultra-super critical plants in Australia is estimated at around A$80 per megawatt-hour.
From - http://theconvers...es-72362

Now you also have all the benefits listed by RealityCheck above. It is a no brainer.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2018
Onions the biggest remaining question is the reason for distributing the panels and batteries over 50K homes. It would cost a LOT less to have a few large installations which would be less costly to maintain. Also solar costs should be compared to existing infrastructure not new plants. To have a government/regulatory shutdown of an existing plant and then claim that new solar is cheaper than new coal is disingenuous.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2018
Again, my customized browser is refusing to open links for security reasons,


Is that Really-Skippy speak for,,,,, "my interweb connection here in the day-room has blocks on it so the patients aren't exposed to upsetting things during their recreation times",,,,,,?

What use is a computer that can't even open up a YourTube? Any good budding Want-To-Be-A-Scientist-Skippy has to have a computer that will at least let you see what your peers (other crankpots) are up to so you don't step on each other's TOES.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
Again, my customized browser is refusing to open links for security reasons,


Is that Really-Skippy speak for,,,,, "my interweb connection here in the day-room has blocks on it so the patients aren't exposed to upsetting things during their recreation times",,,,,,?

What use is a computer that can't even open up a YourTube? Any good budding Want-To-Be-A-Scientist-Skippy has to have a computer that will at least let you see what your peers (other crankpots) are up to so you don't step on each other's TOES.

@Ira
you just made me spit coffee all over the dog!
ROTFLMFAO

thanks!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2018
Just making up numbers does not make them correct. The panels will last for 25 years. We don't know the life expectancy of the batteries - but they are warrantied for 10 years.

There's pretty good numbers for car batteries already (especially those from Tesla). Nicely collected from a couple hundred people on the Belgian/Dutch forum and put into graphs on this blog:
https://steinbuch...on-data/
From the graphs there: You can expect 10% degradation (or less) over the lifetime of a car (which averages about 250000km). The regression line of the degradation pretty much flattens out at 93% mark or thereabouts at roughly 1000 cycles. From these graphs I'd expect you could run a stationary storage solution (which can have even better temperature management than a car) for quite a long time before degradation mandates an add-on (let alone a replacement of batteries).
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2018
We may find some of these answers soon. The Tesla batteries are being installed in homes right now. Ours is in process.

I do not need them for daily operation, and they will not save me money, since my PV system generates at peak, but want them for the ability to be independent. Living in Earthquake Country, it is better to be prepared.

Since we added A/C and another electric car, we will pay for some off-peak power this year.
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
Milage or days of use are not the best way to measure battery life for rechargeables. Cycles is a much better way to judge usable life time where a cycle is 80% charged to 20% discharged and back again. As far as I know 80-20 gives the maximum battery life. Thus a 13.5 KWH battery could supply 8.1 KWH to a home during dark periods. During light periods the 5 KW solar panels would have 4KW left over to power the house and feed the grid. Since the average home uses about 30 KWH per day it looks like the storage capacity needs to be at least doubled in order to supply daily needs. At the very least water heaters would have to be programed to turn on during peak sun.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2018
Our Tesla Model S recommends not keeping the charge up at max or close, but to put in what we will need. I used to keep 247 miles stored up, but now keep it at 180 max usually, since almost all my trips are local, and I usually charge it once a week.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2018
Gkam is I am not mistaken max charge is 80% of the true battery capacity and when you are at zero miles there is still really 20% left in the battery. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What I don't know is if the advertised battery capacity includes the 80-20 safety factor or not.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
It will drive with 20% left, but may be restricted to performance. I have never taken it down that low, but it has a feature which can keep the car at desired temperature while you shop or whatever and the car is "off", and will shut itself off when the battery gets down to 20%, implying it can still run.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
@mr
What I don't know is if the advertised battery capacity includes the 80-20 safety factor or not
it should be labelled in the small print - the legalese which most people don't read
check the site or ask a dealership for the details

If you take it too low you can damage the battery. You can also typically build a memory in said battery. If you use the 80-20 method it provides the best life

for excellent information on PV, Solar and battery systems, go here: https://realgoods.com/

they have an excellent book on everything you need to know and use for a house or business
https://realgoods.com/solar-living-sourcebook-14th-edition
gkam
2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2018
AA sent us to the best set of data for the Tesla battery in the Model S.
https://steinbuch...on-data/

It looks much better than we assumed.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2018
Gkam what does your Tesla home battery cost and what is its rating? What percentage of its rating is usable?
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2018
" In 50% of cases the mileage is just 50 km/charging"

Mack, is that because of real battery limitations or is it because most people do not choose or need to drive it more than that between charges?
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
https://www.tesla...owerwall

PowerWall II questions answered.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2018
MR
Onions the biggest remaining question is the reason for distributing the panels and batteries over 50K homes


I can see a number of advantages. 1. You are putting the panels on roofs, and batteries in garages. This means you are not using space that could be used for other purposes. One of the big denier arguments is that renewables take up too much space. 2. Panels are geographically distributed - which evens out some of the power fluctuations. If it is cloudy over here, it may not be cloudy over there. 3. System components are distributed - which makes the system more resilient - centralized systems can experience catastrophic total failure due to one component failing. The batteries are designed to be maintenance free - so that should not be a problem there. Home owners would have an incentive to get the hose out once in a while to keep dust/dirt problems under control. gkam - how's that issue for you?
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2018
I bought special brushes to clean the panels, but found out I do not need them. Even the infrequent rain cleans them for me.

At least that's my excuse.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2018
@mackita.
could you please just briefly outline exactly what the principles/reactions involved
I'd prefer not, because this subject is not related to article topic.
OK. Thanks anyway, mate.
Try to install better browser, which would allow you to use internet normally.
The crucial term is "security reasons". I long ago configured my browser to aviod/block many sites which my system had detected were infected with 'hidden action/click' malware-containing 'third-party' apps and other insidious corruptions of the affected site's user-handling system/data. That long ago caution/proactive action for my system, has saved me a lot of time/trouble/grief of the kind/magnitude/frequency that has afflicted many unsuspecting/trusting users of 'standard browsers' (recently found/proven to HAVE been corrupted/hacked etc all along). So I'll stick with my own customized browser, thanks mate!
The second technology is apparently related to this recent finding...
Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2018
@Uncle Ira (and 'friend').

Again, please do yourself a favor and read my above reply to @mackita re "security reasons" and other benefits of my own customized browser, which more than offset any minor inconveniences which can be covered for by alternate avenues for accessing same info if important/urgent enough to warrant it.

ps: Re this further stupidity from you:
Is that Really-Skippy speak for,,,,, "my interweb connection here in the day-room has blocks on it so the patients aren't exposed to upsetting things during their recreation times",,,,,,?
I note, Ira, you still haven't figured out how to decouple your bot-voting 'attachment' from your PO account? I suggest you worry about your own "patient day-room" limitations/activities; which are demonstrably keeping you irrelevant, ignorant, mindless, malignant and just plain too stupid to undo all the stupidities you have wrought so far. You pitiable, sicko, 'patient', you. Good luck with that in this New Year, Ira. :)
SwamiOnTheMountain
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2018
Haha. Meanwhile USA, France, Japan, & China are laughing at this decision. Know why? =)
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2018
"USA, France, Japan, & China are laughing at this decision"

I live in the US and I do not hear any laughter.

Our own PV system works much better than they promised. It was supposed to carry 90% of the house, but carries all of it plus new A/C and two electric cars.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2018
"Haha. Meanwhile USA, France, Japan, & China are laughing at this decision. Know why? =)"
Considering the question assumes something unproven, is it because some fools expect us to believe countries laugh?
TrollBane
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2018
"To put it bluntly, Mackita is a low intelligence dumb ass. Made the ignore list today.
"
But then you miss the opportunity to give him the star (singular) he's so clearly earned!
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
...12 cents Kwh power from Hinkley point ... wind and solar will be measured in Kwh per cent.
In a recurrent completely dishonest behavior, renewable cultists are ever insisting that wind and solar are cheaper although "batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants. Intermittent renewables are useless placebos, a trillion-dollar fiasco in the fight against Climate Change, just an expensive way to provide "greenwashing" for coal, oil and gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear power.
greenonions1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
Oh look Willie - solar plus storage at 6.3 cents a Kwh. That is half the cost of Hinkley Point - and the costs just keep falling. Anti progress cultists like you and MR just have to keep lying to spread their misinformation.

https://cleantech...s-chile/
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
...solar plus storage at 6.3 cents a Kwh...
Cleantechnica isn't a reliable source, they have selectively deleted comments and banned commentators that expose their lies.
In the real world, there's no country, or a megacity, or even a small island, successfully 100% powered by wind/solar+batteries; Costa Rica is >90% hydro; Ta'u is a tiny island with 600 residents and still uses fossil-powered vehicles.
"Islands Trying To Use 100% Green Energy Failed, Went Back To Diesel"
http://dailycalle...-diesel/
"100% renewables fail. This small island of El Hierro has been attempting to power itself with wind, solar, and pumped hydro for 3 years, but the diesel back is still the mainstay electricity generators."
http://euanmearns...-update/
https://www.boe.e...013-9944
REnewable is now a REligion, completely dishonest and divorced from reality.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
We are dumping nukes and coal for more and more renewables.
You cannot stop it.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2018
Cleantechnica is a wealth of information Willie - and you can always check out the information (provided you know how to google - which obviously you don't.)

But it is fine for you to source the Daily Mail - when you assert that wind turbines kill whales. How many times do you cite Breitbart?

But anyway - here is a different source - showing that the latest bids for 24/7 solar are under 5 cents. The costs just keep dropping Willie. Good luck advocating for nukes at 12 cents - and going up. Wish you could understand how one graph slopes up - and the other slopes down. Just too much for your brain cell.

http://www.solarp...auction/
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
Responding to Willie is like talking back to a billboard. It doesn't work.

I'll let reality do my talking.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
I'll let reality do my talking
I agree - but there is a little consolation for me in actually pointing out that reality. We are watching so much change - it is like being in the middle of the renaissance or something. 5 cents kwh for new build - 24/7 power. Nothing else can come close. Hinkley point - if it is ever built - is projected to last 50 years. It is inflation adjusted - so after 50 years - that 12 cents will be more like 32 cents. How much will wind and solar be 60 years from now? Talk about stupid government.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
We are dumping nukes and coal for more and more renewables.
"alternative energy" cultists live in a world of "alternative facts".
In the real world, it's natural gas(methane/fracking) that is replacing carbon-free nuclear power with full support of faux-green organizations.
"Without cheap gas, the "gas bridge" to alternative energy sources collapses. The other end of the bridge exists in imagination only."
"Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS."
https://uploads.d...f279.jpg
https://pbs.twimg..._BIl.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2018
Reality bites.
greenonions1
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
Willie
alternative energy" cultists live in a world of "alternative facts
No - you misunderstand - that is Trumps domain (and yours). In the world of real facts - renewables are doing great. I could give you a hundred links - but you are not interested in real facts - just made up bullshit. Here is an interesting little article - showing Europe now generating more power from renewables than from coal - http://renewecono...y-33695/

And Germany is set to phase coal out by 2019 - http://renewecono...er-2019/

Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS
Nope - they run on wind, sun, hydro, geothermal, etc. etc. etc. gkam says that reality bites - which is probably true for you - as you are a member of the cult of anti progress. Reality is exciting to me - as we see the new technologies blossom...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2018
...renewables are doing great...
Wind and solar are failing miserably at reducing emissions everywhere even after trillions of dollars spent.
Hydro and geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited), so indeed wind and solar run on fossil fuels. Ban fossil fuels and people will freeze in the dark when wind stops blowing or at night or on cloudy/snowy days. Ban fossil fuels and windmills and solar panels hardly can be manufactured/mined/transported/installed/repaired/lubricated/recycled.
Parasites cannot survive by themselves without a host, and in this case, the host for intermittent renewables is and will ever be coal, oil and gas, aside huge amounts of governmental subsidies and tax incentives.
"We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." - Warren Buffett
http://www.canyon...-pq2.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2018
...Germany is set to phase coal out by 2019...
If it isn't coal, then it's natural gas(methane: worse than CO2); wind and solar are fossil-addicted parasites.
"Germany Is Addicted to Russian Gas"
https://www.bloom...backyard
"Germany Is a Coal-Burning, Gas-Guzzling Climate Change Hypocrite"
http://foreignpol...pocrite/
"Angela Merkel Lectured Trump On Global Warming, Now Germany Abandoning Its Climate Goal"
http://dailycalle...te-goal/
"Coal was the big winner post Fukushima."
https://pbs.twimg...M30o.jpg
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2018
And Germany is set to phase coal out by 2019

I think you misread the article. The government has promised to *announce a date* by which coal will be phased out in 2019. Climate goals are for 2030, so I expect that will be the date for the final phaseout.

At least there are no coal powerplants which are currently in a serious planning phase or due to be finished (at least none whose construction hasn't been halted or which are buried under some other form of legalese red tape). There's number of coal powerplants (and all the rest of the nuclear powerplants) that will go offline by 2022. Most of the coal powerplants will go into a 'paid reserve' - which basically means they will be able to be reactivated on short notice if there should be a period where renewables and the european grid cannot cope.
But, of course, there's a long list of (mostly off-shore) windparks and quite a bit of PV going up at the same time.
greenonions1
not rated yet Feb 12, 2018
I think you misread the article.
thanks antialias - you are correct. This statement threw me - and I read it as though they were going to declare what date in 2019 they were going to end coal
He said Germany will "absolutely" come up with an end date for coal in early 2019


Willie - renewables are doing fine - which is why the are the fasted growing source of eclectrictiy around the world - https://www.engad...-energy/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
...the fasted growing source of eclectrictiy around the world...
Thanks to generous subsidies, renewables are growing, together with greenhouse emissions, and natural gas(methane/fracking).
No way, wind and solar are solution to Climate Change. Intermittent renewables are solution to fossil fuel industry by providing "greenwashing" in order to displace reliable/weather-resilient sources of carbon-free energy.
"No sun? No wind? No problem, natural gas has it covered. See why #natgas is a great partner for renewable power sources."
https://uploads.d...6965.jpg
https://twitter.c...54220800
Solar/wind power isn't sustainable, it hardly can payback/repay the energy used from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle its components.
https://uploads.d...7c9e.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Willie
Solar/wind power isn't sustainable, it hardly can payback/repay the energy used from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle its components


EROI on solar panels ranges anywhere from 9 to 34 according to some pretty thorough analysis - http://astro1.pan...revs.pdf

Wind has a better eroi than most other energy sources - other than hydro - https://www.scien...13003856

As usual Willie spreads misinformation - but never bothers to do any research....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
Environuts are ever trying to convincing us that wind and solar are increasingly cheaper, although in practice intermittent renewables make the electricity bills costlier, the grid dirtier and the gas/fracking barons wealthier.
"Electricity prices in California rose three times more in 2017 than they did in the rest of the United States — Despite biggest year for hydro since 2011 — Increased solar/wind, loss of nuclear likely key factors"
http://environmen...-in-2017
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
Gosh, Willie, I live in California and my power bills totaled for two years totaled $250. But that includes the new A/C and two electric cars.

How much did you pay for power and gasoline the last two years? Do not forget to add in the costs of oil changes and emissions checks.
greenonions1
not rated yet Feb 14, 2018
Willie
Electricity prices in California rose three times more in 2017 than they did in the rest of the United States
So? There could be many reasons - and if you knew how to use google - instead of cherry picking - by running off to your blatantly bias web sites - you would see articles like this - http://www.latime...apacity/ So poor management is clearly a huge problem in the California situation.

On the other hand - if you took a broader look - you could pull up a site like this - https://energy.go...on-state

And cross check it with one like this - http://www.neo.ne.../204.htm

So you could see that your cherry picking is very transparent. Just picking one example - Washington State produces 93% of its power from renewables - and has the cheapest electricity in the country..... Oregon has the highest percentage of renewables - and is number 12 on the list.
Keep howling at the moon Willie....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2018
Washington State produces 93% of its power from renewables...
Washington state: ~76% hydro. Oregon state: ~43% hydro, ~48% coal&gas. Wind and solar are parasites and need a host, and the host in this case is hydro/coal/gas.
https://upload.wi...urce.png
http://www.biodiv...not.html
http://www.oregon...onut.png
https://pbs.twimg...7m2t.jpg
The pattern is clear: the higher the penetration of intermittent renewables, the costlier the electricity bills becomes, the more unstable and dirtier the grid comes to be.
Except if gskam share his technological technology of converting greenies' lies into perpetual motion to generate electricity to power whole states for just "$250".
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2018
Whine all you want,Willie.

"Facts is facts".
greenonions1
not rated yet Feb 15, 2018
Wind and solar are parasites and need a host, and the host in this case is hydro/coal/gas.
Wrong - and none of your links suggest such a thing. Examples of 100% renewables are clear evidence that they can function without fossil fuels. Yes - most of the world currently uses both ff and renewables. That is because we are in early days of the transition. As renewables continue to become cheaper (which they will) their market share will increase. Currently they are the number one in terms of new generation in many parts of the world - I already showed you that. You can't stop a train Willie....
greenonions1
not rated yet Feb 16, 2018
Wind and solar are dropping faster than many could imagine.
Renewables are not yet the least costly option in every market, but the pace of change demonstrates that a tipping point toward a new energy economy coming, and fast


Some amazing numbers in this article - http://www.theene...business
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2018
"Facts is facts".
Alternative facts are alternative facts. Alternative energy cannot survive without alternative facts to support them.
Examples of 100% renewables are clear evidence...
All examples of "100% renewables" include mostly hydro which is site-specific(geographically limited) and environmentally impacting. Wind and solar are parasites and can't even power a small city or island without a host, i.e. fossil fuels, to hide the intermittencies and inefficiencies.
Almost four trillions of dollars spent worldwide. And wind/solar has not even worked in small-scale in a economically/technically affordable way. No way it will work in large-scale in order to stop Climate Change.
It's cheap because it's worthless, unreliable,
not even Greenpeace and other faux-green organizations rely on wind/solar placebos to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans, they trust in marine diesel instead.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2018
That is because we are in early days of the transition.
Transition to renewables = transition to medieval ages/energy poverty.
http://krisdedeck...0970c-pi
http://krisdedeck...0b-500wi
http://krisdedeck...0c-500wi
http://www.lowtec...ine.com/
Sails and windmills are medieval technologies that were replaced mostly by steam engines, and now the environuts want humanity back to the Dark Ages.
https://uploads.d...adda.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2018
Transition to renewables = transition to medieval ages/energy poverty
Wow - quite a high level of ignorance there Willie. Thing is - when you are in the midst of change - it takes some intelligence to see that change. Many people are like you - they are unable to see what is happening around them. But that change is happening - and many countries are on track to go to 100% renewables - in the relatively near future. But of course it would be costly to shut down all existing generation - and try to switch over in just 5 years or something. So the process has to take it's course. Tell Scotland they have "medieval energy poverty" - when they are at 100% renewables - 2 years from now - https://futurism....o-years/

Read this article Willie - https://cleantech...-energy/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2018
...many countries are on track to go to 100% renewables...
It's interesting that "100% renewable" cannot be proven workable even in small scale(predominately with wind/solar/storage within a limited/restrict hydro context), but even so the eco-nuts assure that whole countries/continents are 100% powered by wind/solar unicorn energy.
"A sausage factory paid more if it sells no sausages? The shocking economics of Scottish wind farms."
https://capx.co/t...-racket/
"Costa Rica: >90% hydro & geothermal. But let's tweet the good news with pictures of solar or wind anyway." "Key point. "Wind and solar do not produce enough energy to manufacture themselves." They are parasites on fossil, hydro, and nuclear. They are wealth-destroying technologies."
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Baghdad Willie.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
It's interesting that "100% renewable" cannot be proven workable even in small scale
Yes it can. Scotland is on track to be at 100% renewables in 2 years. They are one of the early adopters - but you can't stop this train Willie - no matter how much you howl at the moon..
https://futurism....o-years/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2018
If Tesla wind/solar+batteries is so good and cheap, then Elon Musk should run his factories entirely off-the-grid to prove it is 100% reliable and affordable.
https://uploads.d...3d0e.jpg
Scotland is on track to be at 100% renewables...
Scotland grid is integrated with UK grid, so intermittent renewables can hide the intermittencies thanks to fossil-fueled grid, wind and solar are parasites, and parasites cannot survive without a host.
http://www.euanme...npie.png
"Green UK is relying on Russian natural gas to keep the population from freezing to death this winter."
https://pbs.twimg...tMcK.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
If Tesla wind/solar+batteries is so good and cheap, then Elon Musk should run his factories entirely off-the-grid


That's exactly what Tesla is going to do....

https://www.theve...megawatt

So Willie - Musk is building batteries (for cars, and stationary apps), electric cars, solar panels, and sending rockets to one day colonize mars. What are doing?? - besides declare how what is already happening - cannot be happening - cuz negative little know nothings like you can type on a keyboard??

Scotland grid is integrated with UK grid
Correct Willie - because one way of dealing with the intermittency issue of wind and solar - is grid integration. Europe is doing it. Canada Mexico and the U.S. are doing it. Everyone wins - cuz we share cheap, clean electricity.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2018
...building batteries (for cars, and stationary apps), electric cars, solar panels,...
All thanks to child labor.
"Thank you, African child miner! Without you we couldn't have clean electric cars, windmills & solar panels! Mine on little one!"
https://pbs.twimg...xAjr.jpg
"If you think a battery can keep a city running over night, think again"
"A LI-ION battery the size of football field 18 feet high would last about 8 hours@a cost of $4B and you'd have to charge it first"
https://uploads.d...429e.jpg
"The Hidden Risks of Batteries: Child Labor, Modern Slavery, and Weakened Land and Water Rights"
https://www.green...al-risks
"Tesla's gigafactory will require 7,000 to 15,750 tonnes of refined cobalt per year to manufacture 35 GWh of cells."

Musk's rockets aren't powered by wind/solar+batteries.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
Yeah Willie - cobalt is also used for gas turbines and jet engines - so are you on a campaign to ban gas turbines or jets? Every energy source has an environmental cost. I will take cobalt used in batteries - which can be recycled - over burning coal, oil, and gas. Interesting how you suddenly become the great humanitarian, but have you given up your cell phone, or your computer? They have cobalt. The solution will be in international actions that create global standards for the environment, and labor laws. I doubt you are interested in that topic.
the negative impacts of Uranium mining have fallen disproportionately on low income and minority communities
Funny how you don't have a problem with that issue. From - http://large.stan...gstaff1/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2018
Every energy source has an environmental cost.
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental cost per unit of energy produced, while intermittent renewables have one of highest cost.
https://pbs.twimg...goHD.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0zRI.jpg
Batteries, windmills and solar panels, are not being recycled by sunshine&breeze-powered machines.

There is no pictures/photos of children in uranium mines, because most of mining is by modern process ("in situ leach (ISL) mining").
While there are uncountable images and videos of children mining for renewables.
http://www.lawyer...x576.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/21/08/2D560AA600000578-3280872-Panning_for_rare_minerals_for_12_hours_a_day_this_miner_is_cover-m-1_1445410917690.jpg
https://www.youtu...8me22NVs
https://www.youtu..._azqvPKI
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iZ3BoqypGYU/maxresdefault.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental cost per unit of energy produced, while intermittent renewables have one of highest cost
Complete lie Willie. Your little picture has one piece missing doesn't it?
"Fuel excluded"


There is no pictures/photos of children in uranium mines
No - and I agree that this practice needs to end. Are you going to give up your computer? But the whole picture has to be looked at. Nuclear power is way more expensive - and carries it's own environmental health and safety issues
To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings


The real question - is why do you need to keep telling lies (turbines kill whales) to argue that reality is not reality? It seems like maybe you have an economic interest or something.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2018
"Fuel excluded"
"Uranium mining contributes small fraction of total nuclear power emissions, study says"
"Despite critics' claims that mining and milling uranium is a hidden cost in the comparatively clean nuclear fuel cycle, extracting the radioactive material produces only a small fraction of the process's total emissions, according to the author of a new study."
http://thestarpho...dy-says/
"The price of uranium has little effect on the price of nuclear power since the fuel is such a small part of the total cost and the cost of fuel itself is dominated by the fabrication costs, not the cost of uranium."
http://nextbigfut...rgy.html
"The uranium itself has a very low level of radioactivity, comparable with granite."
http://world-nucl...-Mining/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
Uranium mining contributes small fraction of total nuclear power emissions, study says
Irrelevant. You made this lie
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental cost per unit of energy produced, while intermittent renewables have one of highest cost
But then you support it wit a dishonest graph that excludes the fossil fuel/nuclear fuel in the equation. Blatantly and stupidly false. When you look at the whole picture - renewables are head and shoulders over fossil fuels and nuclear in terms of life time environmental costs. Why don't you answer my question?
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2018
...(turbines kill whales)...
Wind turbines invade untouched natural habitats causing unnatural disruptions, the noise generated by wind turbines affect the sonar that whales use to navigate.
"Miles of underwater cables could trap whales"
"Constant underwater noise might interrupt sea life navigation and communication."
http://www.sanlui...914.html
https://stopthese...-whales/
It seems like maybe you have an economic interest or something.
No one pays me to expose the faux-greens' lies and contradictions.
Faux-greens have economic interest in promoting intermittent renewables, that ends favoring the coal and natural gas(fracking) industries. Wind and solar do not displace fossil fuels, they just provide them with "greenwashing" in order to put carbon-free nuclear power out of business.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
Wind and solar do not displace fossil fuels
Yes they do - stop lying. I get that you are passionate about nukes. Funnily - I am fine with nukes - as long as they compete from a cost perspective. Right now they can't. Being passionate does not excuse being a liar. One example -
Carbon-free nuclear power has the lowest environmental cost per unit of energy produced, while intermittent renewables have one of highest cost
That is a lie. Your chart excluded the factor of fuel. If you factor in the environmental cost of coal, oil, gas, uranium mining - renewables win that debate hands down. So you then become known as a liar - and have no credibility. Seems stupid to me.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2018
Your chart excluded the factor of fuel.
Windmills, solar panels and batteries, are manufactured/mined/transported/installed/repaired/recycled by fossil-fueled machines.
...renewables win that debate hands down...
Wind and solar are inherently intermittent and have poor energy density thereby have strong dependence on fossil fuels (the host for the "unreliables" parasites). Ban fossil fuels, and wind/solar dies.
"Energy density strongly determines environmental impact. High-density fuels require less mining, materials & land — & generate less waste."
http://environmen...lear-can
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
Windmills, solar panels and batteries, are manufactured/mined/transported/installed/repaired/recycled by fossil-fueled machines
Not always - but so what? None of that addresses your need to tel lies.

Yes wind and solar are intermittent. Yes - we currently have a global energy system that is based on fossil fuels. Based on cost - and environmental benefits - we are now embarking on a journey to replace those ff with cheaper/cleaner energy. Rome was not built in a day - the transition will perhaps take 100 years. We may have to accelerate the schedule - based on the effects of climate change. Why not look hard at your need to tell lies. It diminishes you.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2018
we are now embarking on a journey to replace those ff with cheaper/cleaner energy.
A pipe dream fueled by taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Rome was not built in a day
It's because they only had sails, windmills and slavers which were renewables too.
the transition will perhaps take 100 years
sails, windmills and most of slavers were replaced by steam engines and fossil-fueled machines.
We may have to accelerate the schedule - based on the effects of climate change.
Wind and solar are not solution to Climate Change, they have failed miserably at every attempt in reducing emissions even after trillions of dollars invested worldwide, e.g. Energiewende.
http://gertjaap.v...asco.png
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2018
Wind and solar are not solution to Climate Change, they have failed miserably at every attempt in reducing emissions
Wow - no matter how many times I show you that you say things that are not true - you just keep on diminishing yourself.
https://www.newsc...e-falls/
http://www.indepe...266.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2018
From your article:
"Drop in coal"
"Rise in gas"
Intermittent renewables do not replace fossil fuels. A kind of fossil fuel(coal) is being replaced by another fossil fuel(natural gas/methane).
Although natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide (CO₂) per unit of energy as coal, natural gas is essentially methane(CH₄) which traps 86 times as much heat as CO₂.
"Natural Gas has No Climate Benefit and May Make Things Worse"
https://thisspace...s-worse/
"If too much methane leaks out as natural gas is drilled and pumped from the ground, it could negate any climate benefits derived from switching fuels."

Natural gas(fracking) industry loves wind and solar, as they provide it with "greenwashing".
https://twitter.c...54220800
https://pbs.twimg...t8Ew.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2018
Also from my article
Carbon emissions in 2016 are around 36 per cent below the reference year of 1990
demand is falling rapidly because of cheaper gas, a hike in carbon taxes on the highly polluting fuel, expansion of renewables...
My second article shows that the UK is now getting around 30% of it's electrical power from renewables. So - your statement
they have failed miserably at every attempt in reducing emissions
Is a lie - you just keep diminishing yourself.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2018
more support -
Renewables, not natural gas, are cutting US power sector emissions.
Carbon emissions from the power sector dropped 4.2 percent in 2017, this time on the back of declining load and greater renewable generation
from - http://renewecono...s-89007/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2018
More and more evidences that intermittent renewables are a multi-billionaire fiasco at reducing emissions, while carbon-free nuclear power is a success.
Denmark: 600g CO₂eq/kWh
France: 68g CO₂eq/kWh
https://pbs.twimg...XeL7.jpg
Even so, the eco-nuts and faux-greens call real data "lies", and label "shills" or ridiculously excommunicate and prosecute any group of scientists that debunk their delusional "100% renewable" fantasies.
"A Stanford professor drops his ridiculous defamation lawsuit against his scientific critics"
http://www.latime...ory.html
https://www.forbe...nowhere/
Renewable cultists have no option except to show us biased articles from unreliable sources such as reneweconomy, cleantechnica, enenews, etc. in order to sustain their dogmas and beliefs.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
More evidence that renewables are moving our world to a world with less C02 - counter to liar Willies assertions. - https://www.thegu...says-eea

Renewables have replaced 100m tonnes of oil equivalent electricity generation this decade,
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2018
Most of CO₂ reductions are due to replacement of coal by natural gas/methane(CH₄).
Environuts previously loved to proudly cite Germany and Denmark as example of wind and solar success (i.e. a political success in implementing environmentally-hypocritical crazy ideas with taxpayers' hard-earned money by constitutional laws), now they avoid to mention these countries because renewables are proven there to be an expensive fiasco at reducing emissions, a big waste of taxpayers' money, at cost of a huge ecological impact that just ended favoring the coal and gas industries, a tremendous disservice in the fight against Climate Change..
"While Denmark gets all its clean energy from wind + solar, its other sources of electricity are mostly coal + gas, giving it a carbon intensity of 431g of CO2/kWh. France, at 64% nuclear, has a CI of 69g CO2/kWh."
https://pbs.twimg...Fbmf.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...XeL7.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
Most of CO₂ reductions are due to replacement of coal by natural gas/methane(CH₄).
But some are due to the replacement of ff with renewables.
Renewables have replaced 100m tonnes of oil equivalent electricity generation this decade,
This proves the lie from Willie
Wind and solar are not solution to Climate Change, they have failed miserably at every attempt in reducing emissions


Sorry you failed at logic class Willie.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
Willie
While Denmark gets all its clean energy from wind + solar, its other sources of electricity are mostly coal + gas,


So what will you be saying in 2050 Willie? When Denmark gets all its energy from renewables.

The Danish Government's plan "Our Energy" seeks to create green growth and help the country convert to 100 percent renewable energy use by 2050


From - http://www.go100p...s%5D=109
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2018
...in 2050...
It is not necessary to wait until 2050 to get all energy from renewables. Europe already got it in the middle/ancient ages by burning wood/forests, using sails and windmills and slave labor.
Your can get all energy from renewables now, just disconnect from the grid, install solar panels and windmills, and try to run your home and electric car entirely on sunshine&breeze unicorn energy, or you can beg gskam to share his technological technology of converting faux-greens' fibs into perpetual motion to generate energy to power entire countries/states 24/7/365 uninterruptedly forever.
...all its energy from renewables.
Low emissions should be the goal, not 100% unicorn energy.
https://pbs.twimg...Jj3V.jpg
https://uploads.d...6a1e.png
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2018
Renewables have replaced 100m tonnes of oil equivalent electricity generation this decade,
Globally, nuclear energy displaces 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions yearly, equal to 600,000 wind turbines(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) running a year.
https://pbs.twimg...VCQh.jpg
"Solar and wind are heavily dependent on fossil. To be mined, built, transported installed. Of course ...Intermittent, unreliable, non-dispatchable power forms do not work all the time. They are mostly backed up by nat gas."
"The diffuse energy of wind provides NO firm capacity. WASTING $TRILLIONS destroying the environment you claim you wish to save is beyond ignorant. Wind is an antiquated technology that was relegated to the dustbins of history when the RELIABLE SteamEngine came along centuries ago"
decorative facade:
https://cbsnews1....lant.jpg
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
Globally, nuclear energy displaces 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions yearly


Well nuclear energy is about 11% of electricity production - https://www.nei.o...atistics

renewables are more than double that - https://www.iea.o...eenergy/

So that blows that argument out of the water - and renewables are now the new build of choice - due to cost - https://thinkprog...350fb95/

decorative facade:
Or very viable energy source - that is beating every other current electricity generation in terms of new build - cuz it's the cheapest....

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2018
renewables are more than double that
Most of renewables are hydro and biomass. Hydro is site specific(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse effect. Wind and solar are just parasites that cannot survive without a host, ie. fossil fuels.
it's the cheapest...
It is so dishonest stating wind and solar are the cheapest if "batteries not included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants. Alternatively, cultists include biased articles from unreliable sources such as reneweconomy, cleantechnica, enenews, etc. in order to keep the intermittent renewables scam on going.

gkam
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2018
Greenie is arguing with a transponder.

Willie is not real.
WillieWard
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2018
Believe it or not, unlike unicorns replacing fossil fuels, sociopath faux-greens maniac compulsive pathological liars are real.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.