Massive PPA for Los Angeles: PV + Battery Under 4 cents a kWh

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SageBrush

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,959
Location
NM
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/09/10/los-angeles-commission-says-yes-to-cheapest-solar-plus-storage-in-the-usa/

400 MW AC PV paired with 300 MW/1.2 GWh battery storage. This is the type of design that covers the 5pm - 9pm evening demand with PV
 
Excellent stuff. We’re in the beginning stages of great things with battery storage and prices get better every year.
 
Hopefully it works and doesn't turn into another Ivanpah or high speed rail project.
 
iPlug said:
Excellent stuff. We’re in the beginning stages of great things with battery storage and prices get better every year.
Indeed !

I presume that the bid makes future assumptions about battery prices since the project will go online in 2023. PV projects do the same and in general have found future prices to be even lower than projected. Since this project is a PPA, I did not see project cost. Too bad; I would have liked to estimate battery cost.

The other side of battery improvement is longevity. Jeff Dahn recently published a Li-x chemistry that lasts for 1 million miles in an EV or 20 years in a storage application.
 
Good news for California City, I suppose?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3LUhFwx6k[/youtube]
 
Guy figured building massive city in the middle of the Mojave desert would attract the masses.

Hmmm. No water, no jobs, not fun climate, too far away from whatever; sure that was going to work.
 
^^ Isn't that a little harsh ?
It is only a 3 hour commute to L.A. at East Coast speeds
One hour at CA speeds on an open highway
30 minutes in a nice train.

In fairness to the original developers, they *thought* they had an adequate water supply. And if in fact the city had grown as hoped, you can bet the political mass would have taken the water from elsewhere. Just like L.A

Frankly, the existence of Phoenix says that a city can pop up just about anywhere, hell be damned
 
I don’t know much about Phoenix, but apparently it required adequate water as with most nascent cities, in that case from the Salt and Gila Rivers, allowing it to start as an agricultural city.

If California City can buck that trend with a reboot with massive solar farms, they should buy the rights to rename as Solar City. Heck, maybe Elon could buy the city, build out solar PV everywhere, would license the name for free, have a SpaceX port next door, and Boring tunnels to L.A. and NorCal...
 
If I haven't misplaced a number anywhere, the first year's projected generation works out to an expected CF of 24.4% with just under 20% guaranteed; 25% being about the peak CF in the best desert sites. Naturally, CF decreases each subsequent year as the panels degrade. This is a fantastic price, IF it meets its claims.
 
Oh great... Los Angeles will spend millions... Billions? on a giant solar panel city. At what cost to the tax payer? Did they vote for it? Does LA really NEED 4 cent/ KW electricity? By building giant monstrosities?

Here is an example of the first signs of "sustainable cities", in which the government will design cities without consulting the citizens.

They should take care of the homeless problem first, and finish building the wall. I love these idealistic, out of touch with reality politicians.

I'm not saying that generating electricity from solar is wrong. In fact I believe that our future (distant} is solar. I think that it is laughable that they are willing to spend Billions on a New Green Deal pipe dream while our country cant even build a darn wall...
 
powersurge said:
Oh great... Los Angeles will spend millions... Billions? on a giant solar panel city. At what cost to the tax payer?
PPA

You would be amazed how helpful it is to actually read the article. Or just start with a little reading comprehension of the title of this thread.
 
This will be the,,,, I lot count in the late 1990s attempt to restart California city.
With exploding home and land prices within the established cities it's probably only a matter of time before it really does take off.
 
Solar panels don’t require a lot of maintenance, which is certainly good for the consumers and operators. It does create good jobs for installers but is not particularly good for creating a bunch of plant operations maintenance jobs that would help build a population.

Hopefully some other industry with long term employment prospects will find the town.

Somewhat ironically, it will be cheaper to build more PV the fewer people that migrate there as that will keep land values down.
 
SageBrush said:
powersurge said:
Oh great... Los Angeles will spend millions... Billions? on a giant solar panel city. At what cost to the tax payer?
PPA

You would be amazed how helpful it is to actually read the article. Or just start with a little reading comprehension of the title of this thread.


Indeed. Or there's the short version for those who won't read, for the acronym-challenged: "PPA" = "Power Purchase Agreement."
 
powersurge said:
They should take care of the homeless problem first, and finish building the wall.
No money outlay. And maybe with the money saved there could be some help for the homeless.
Maybe with lower electric bills the tenants can pay rent and not get evicted.
Maybe the existing shelters can save money on electricity and increase help services.



I love these idealistic, out of touch with reality posts.
 
Back
Top