(11-26-2017, 02:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I notice that Eric here didn't post a $/KWh for solar which is still higher than coal.  As I've said elsewhere wind in intermittent.  Given that apart from hydroelectric and geothermal power most so-called clean energy platforms are at least intermittent the only real competition coal faces is from gas or nuclear.

Unless intermittent is addressed "clean" energy is a pipe dream unless the goal is to have a great leap backward in living standards.

As for nuclear, a large part of the problem there is the insurance regulations imposed by the department of energy.

Quote:STEVE INSKEEP, host:
The Amish are not known for embracing modern life - quite the opposite. But when it comes to solar power, the Amish are turning out to be early technology adopters.
Fred Kight of member station WOUB at Athens, Ohio reports.
FRED KIGHT: This is Holmes County, an area in northeast Ohio that's home of the largest settlement of Amish in the world. Like their fellow Amish in other parts of the country, these Amish prefer the horse and buggy for getting around and use horses to pull their plows to work the fields.
(Soundbite of horses plowing)
KIGHT: But increasingly there's evidence of 21st century power here - solar panels appear on rooftops everywhere you look.
Eli Miller is Amish and sells solar equipment to his neighbors. He says about 80 percent of the Amish around here now use solar.
Mr. ELI MILLER (Solar Equipment Dealer): Well, for instance, it used to be like the wind would pump the water for the farm houses years and years ago, turning the windmills, and now of course it's a different way of getting power from the sun. I guess if you want to interpret it like that.
KIGHT: Jonathan Miller - no relation - is also Amish. He and his father own a furniture store in the town of Berlin that does a healthy solar sideline business.
Mr. JONATHAN MILLER (Furniture Store Owner): It's pretty aggressive right now. As far in the last five years, it's really been picking up among the Amish. They're learning what all they could do with it.
KIGHT: Miller says solar's popularity here has spread largely by word of mouth and convenience is a key factor. With a single two-feet-by-four-feet solar panel and an investment of less than a thousand dollars, there's enough energy to operate several lights, around 146 kilowatt hours a year.
(Soundbite of indistinct conversation)
KIGHT: Dairy farmer Owen Nesley(ph) belongs to the old order denomination and embraces the slow-paced Amish life, but he's enthusiastic about solar.
Mr. OWEN NESLEY (Dairy Farmer): What I really like is the renewable energy part. I'm out here doing my work and the sun is shining and I'm aware that juice is going into my batteries. Tonight I'll have it for my lighting at no cost other than, of course, the initial setup.
KIGHT: Another big bonus: having solar for lights greatly improves home safety.
Mr. NESLEY: This area, we have accepted that policy to use batteries and light. There were some issues with older people lighting the gaslights and having fires.
KIGHT: The Amish refuse to hook up to the power grid that serves other residents in this area who could never get by on a measly 146 kilowatt hours annually. With washing machines, televisions, microwaves and all the other appliances Amish shun - modern households need something like 100 times that amount of power.
To keep those appliances and enjoy the energy freedom many Amish now have, the typical homeowner would have to invest $20,000 in solar to live off the grid.
For NPR News, I'm Fred Kight in Athens, Ohio.

(11-27-2017, 05:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: " the argument from the fossil fuel industry that green power cannot stand alone no longer holds water.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting... is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels.""
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electricity-prices-markets-auction-alberta-1.4417616

Climate science deniers like kinser are still proclaiming that green power can't work because it's intermittant. Deniers are simply people that refuse to keep up with the facts, in order to hang onto right-wing ideology. It's that simple.

(11-29-2017, 04:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Tesla is normally thought of as a car company, but this announcement underscores that Tesla is really a battery company that happens to put some of the batteries in cars. It has built a massive battery factory in Nevada and needs to make sure it can sell the correspondingly massive number of batteries that factory will be producing in the coming years.

Of course, most of those batteries are supposed to go into Tesla's cars. But developing a side business in battery packs for use by residential customers and electric utilities helps to diversify Tesla's business. If the car business hits unexpected snags—as it has with the Model 3 launch in recent months—Tesla can sell the extra batteries for non-car uses.

And it's going to take a lot more installations like the one in South Australia if the world is going to ultimately wean itself off fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly affordable, but both types of power produce energy intermittently. Huge battery installations ensure that utilities can supply households with electricity even when the supply of renewable electrons fluctuates.

(11-29-2017, 04:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/elon-musk-wins-bet-finishing-massive-battery-installation-in-100-days/

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/elon-musk-wins-bet-finishing-massive-battery-installation-in-100-days/

Tesla has completed construction of a massive 100-megawatt, 129-MWh battery installation in South Australia. The new facility boasts the largest megawatt rating for any grid-connected battery installation in the world.

The project was completed less than two months after the contract was signed on September 29, putting it ahead of schedule. Musk had promised Australian authorities that he would complete the project in 100 days or the project would be free. Musk has said it would cost Tesla "$50 million or more" if the company failed to meet the deadline.

"Congratulations to the Tesla crew and South Australian authorities who worked so hard to get this manufactured and installed in record time!" Musk tweeted late on Wednesday night (Thursday in Australia).

The state of South Australia saw a need to beef up its electricity infrastructure after a September 2016 storm caused a state-wide blackout. State officials wanted to ensure that didn't happen again, and they wanted to find a solution that made use of renewable energy.

The Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown, South Australia, produces 315 megawatts of electricity, but, like any wind farm, it's not a steady source of power. So Tesla's batteries will charge up during periods when the wind farm is producing excess energy, then supply extra power to the grid during periods of peak demand.

FURTHER READING
Tesla announces truck prices lower than experts predicted

Tesla's involvement in the project originated from a March Twitter conversation between Musk and Australian billionaire and software entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes. Musk said that if he got the contract, "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free."

Tesla won a competitive bidding process in July and signed the contract in September. The system needs to undergo a few days of testing and is expected to be put into operation in early December.

Tesla is normally thought of as a car company, but this announcement underscores that Tesla is really a battery company that happens to put some of the batteries in cars. It has built a massive battery factory in Nevada and needs to make sure it can sell the correspondingly massive number of batteries that factory will be producing in the coming years.

Of course, most of those batteries are supposed to go into Tesla's cars. But developing a side business in battery packs for use by residential customers and electric utilities helps to diversify Tesla's business. If the car business hits unexpected snags—as it has with the Model 3 launch in recent months—Tesla can sell the extra batteries for non-car uses.

And it's going to take a lot more installations like the one in South Australia if the world is going to ultimately wean itself off fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly affordable, but both types of power produce energy intermittently. Huge battery installations ensure that utilities can supply households with electricity even when the supply of renewable electrons fluctuates.

(02-21-2018, 07:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: :: Rags contacts his inner Xer here.

The Ausies might  want to see how long those batteries last, man.

Word: technonarcissism. 

What a turkey!  *

* Turkey award for Tesla.

(02-22-2018, 12:40 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-21-2018, 07:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: :: Rags contacts his inner Xer here.

The Ausies might  want to see how long those batteries last, man.

Word: technonarcissism. 

What a turkey!  *

* Turkey award for Tesla.

This is a good point. Lithium-ion batteries, or their Lithium-Polymer equivalents, have a shelf-life issue.  They need to be totally reworked every 10 years or so, often less as noted at the link.  It's a chemical thing, and not easily overcome.  They literally stop working, because they cease being the batteries they once were. Since it's more or less a total redo every time, assume your battery backup is on a 10 year total replacement cycle when pricing it ... and that's a best-case situation.

(02-22-2018, 01:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Ten years is a longer life than for many cars (depending on how they are maintained and driven, and the overall desirability of the car), let alone such components as tires. I would not be surprised to find that the lithium at the least is recyclable, and I would guess that it is more recyclable than the polymer plastic.

Quote:(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions -- including its mandate for electric car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.

...............

The state’s 2009 waiver under the Clean Air Act has allowed California to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s. But the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules. Negotiations toward another set of harmonized rules has not yet yielded agreement.

If Trump’s plan sticks, it could be his biggest regulatory rollback yet. Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

California, for its part, rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end. “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

The most-populous U.S. state and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on May 2 seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

Caught somewhere in the middle are automakers, which in recent months have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

"This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights," said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?"

(07-23-2018, 07:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: from Bloomberg:  powerful evidence that Donald Trump is the anti-environment President

Trump to Seek Repeal of California's Smog-Fighting Power

Quote:(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions -- including its mandate for electric car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.

...............

The state’s 2009 waiver under the Clean Air Act has allowed California to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s. But the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules. Negotiations toward another set of harmonized rules has not yet yielded agreement.

If Trump’s plan sticks, it could be his biggest regulatory rollback yet. Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

California, for its part, rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end. “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

The most-populous U.S. state and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on May 2 seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

Caught somewhere in the middle are automakers, which in recent months have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

"This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights," said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-to-seek-repeal-of-californias-smog-fighting-power/ar-BBL00jT

My comment:

What applies to California could apply to any region with a potential problem of smog, including such areas as the tri-state area  surrounding New York City, Greater Chicago,  Greater Houston, Greater Atlanta, and Greater Phoenix. Of course, President Trump has an energy policy identical with that of the fossil-fuel industry -- to get people to buy cars that consume more fossil fuels and to rely more heavily upon fossil fuels.

But what can you expect from someone who sees the world exclusively as a matter of profit and loss, and deprivation of the poor for the indulgence of elites?

(07-24-2018, 10:21 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: But are we ever really going to see any reduction in car dependency? More and more it seems doubtful as nothing has really changed in the nearly half century since many folks had to wait in long lines just to get gasoline. If anything we are even more car dependent than we were back then with the expansion of what has come to be known as the exurbs. Not much interest in changing course is evident, and it is often said that the advent of the ride sharing and food delivery services has actually put more cars on the road as so many have fallen for the line that they could make big money on these so-called gig economy platforms.

(07-24-2018, 10:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-24-2018, 10:21 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: But are we ever really going to see any reduction in car dependency? More and more it seems doubtful as nothing has really changed in the nearly half century since many folks had to wait in long lines just to get gasoline. If anything we are even more car dependent than we were back then with the expansion of what has come to be known as the exurbs. Not much interest in changing course is evident, and it is often said that the advent of the ride sharing and food delivery services has actually put more cars on the road as so many have fallen for the line that they could make big money on these so-called gig economy platforms.

The older suburbs (like Hayward , California; Southfield, Michigan; Aurora, Colorado; Cicero, Illinois; and Richardson, Texas -- not to mention a real cesspool like Ferguson, Missouri) become increasingly urban in character as apartment complexes supplant the post-WWII bungalows as the GIs and early-wave Silent are no longer around.  The gig economy is a reality for now, but I can see that becoming a target of literary and political assaults as it gets things done but at an excessive cost to the participants.

I can imagine a Trump objective of putting current freeways under tolls on behalf of profiteering monopolists. Add another $20 in the cost of living just for the enrichment of profiteering monopolists well-connected to a political elite, and along comes more anger at the system.

We will not reduce our car dependency until we can accept that extreme concentration of people in high-rise housing that effectively puts everybody within a walk or elevator ride (or both) between tiny living spaces and basic needs (which will be groceries, medicine, and low-brow entertainment) with commutes exclusively for getting to and from work. Even for the kiddies, school might be built into the 'multi-purpose behemoths.

We have let our cars become the means of escape from thoroughly-awful places in which to live. If you live in a depressed area like southeastern Kentucky, then you car is your chance to get to such a place as Atlanta or Indianapolis. If you live in a dreary hick town, then your car might be the means of getting somewhere 'where the action is'. If you are talking about some low-paying jobs as driving a taxi or a delivery vehicle, then cars create opportunities for semi-skilled labor (machine-operator category).

As it is, all the solutions that our elites of ownership and management offer are those that have a profit built in through monopoly pricing or cheap labor requiring little training.

(07-24-2018, 03:49 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: It wasn't until after WWII that owning a car became pretty much a necessity for a majority of the people. It would be nice, but I often wonder if a majority would ever accept self-contained communities? This was to an extent promoted with the hippie commune idea in the 1960s. In order for such to work in more places, suburban areas and many urban neighborhoods as well would need to break away from the idea of allowing only single family housing to be built, which has contributed a great deal to the homeless problem which began during the late 1980s.