Page 2 of 2

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

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:38 am
by SageBrush
powersurge wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:58 am
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.

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

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:18 am
by Oilpan4
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.

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

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:38 am
by iPlug
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.

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

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:09 pm
by GRA
SageBrush wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:38 am
powersurge wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:58 am
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."

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

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:37 pm
by smkettner
powersurge wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:58 am
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.