Parity in Texas for Solar

solar_dave
solar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭✭
in Solar Information links & sources, event announcements #1
http://www.the9billion.com/2014/03/16/solar-power-more-economical-than-gas-coal-nuclear-in-texas/
Austin Energy is going to pay under 5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity from 2 new solar power plants, Cleantechnica has reported. This is a couple of cents less than it estimates it could have paid for electricity from a natural gas plant (7 cents), 5 cents less than from a coal-fired power plant (10 cents), and 8 cents less than from a nuclear power plant (13 cents).

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/solar-power-cheaper-natural-gas-coal-and-nuclear-power-texas.html

hmmm i guess now we can see why APS is wanting to control solar in Arizona, likely an even better place to deploy solar farms.
· Share on Twitter

Comments

  • vtmaps
    vtmaps Solar Expert Posts: 3,741 ✭✭✭✭
    #2
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    solar_dave wrote: »
    Austin Energy is going to pay under 5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity from 2 new solar power plants, Cleantechnica has reported. This is a couple of cents less than it estimates it could have paid for electricity from a natural gas plant (7 cents), 5 cents less than from a coal-fired power plant (10 cents), and 8 cents less than from a nuclear power plant (13 cents).

    hmmm i guess now we can see why APS is wanting to control solar in Arizona, likely an even better place to deploy solar farms.

    It makes sense that a utility pay less for solar power. Sometimes it's worth paying more for a source (gas, coal, nuke) because you can count on it 24/7.

    --vtMaps
    4 X 235watt Samsung, Midnite ePanel, Outback VFX3524 FM60 & mate, 4 Interstate L16, trimetric, Honda eu2000i
    · Share on Twitter
  • solar_dave
    solar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭✭
    #3
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    vtmaps wrote: »
    It makes sense that a utility pay less for solar power. Sometimes it's worth paying more for a source (gas, coal, nuke) because you can count on it 24/7.

    --vtMaps

    Nicer than firing up a peaker running nat gas though on a hot sunny day.
    · Share on Twitter
  • westbranch
    westbranch Solar Expert Posts: 5,183 ✭✭✭✭
    #4
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar

    So far none of these proposals cover off any of the new technologies for short term 'peak demand supply' storage of, you know, the stuff that we get from that big yellow Ball in the sky, or the Wind...:cry:
     
    KID #51B  4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM
    CL#29032 FW 2126/ 2073/ 2133 175A E-Panel WBjr, 3 x 4s 140W to 24V 900Ah C&D AGM 
    Cotek ST1500W 24V Inverter,OmniCharge 3024,
    2 x Cisco WRT54GL i/c DD-WRT Rtr & Bridge,
    Eu3/2/1000i Gens, 1680W & E-Panel/WBjr to come, CL #647 asleep
    West Chilcotin, BC, Canada
    · Share on Twitter
  • solar_dave
    solar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,397 ✭✭✭✭
    #5
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    westbranch wrote: »
    So far none of these proposals cover off any of the new technologies for short term 'peak demand supply' storage of, you know, the stuff that we get from that big yellow Ball in the sky, or the Wind...:cry:

    Actually they have here in AZ with the Solano plant and molten salts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station
    · Share on Twitter
  • SolarPowered
    SolarPowered Solar Expert Posts: 626 ✭✭✭
    #6
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    solar_dave wrote: »
    Actually they have here in AZ with the Solano plant and molten salts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

    The solana plant is limited to 6 hours of maxximum capacity storage. the cost per watt seems kind of high for its generated output at .14kWh, nuclear is .13kWh and has 10 times the out put capacity.

    Not arguing just random fact.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Lee Dodge
    Lee Dodge Solar Expert Posts: 112 ✭✭
    #7
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    SolarPowered wrote: »
    The solana plant is limited to 6 hours of maxximum capacity storage. the cost per watt seems kind of high for its generated output at .14kWh, nuclear is .13kWh and has 10 times the out put capacity.

    Not arguing just random fact.

    What is the cost per kWh currently for the Fukishima nuclear plant?
    · Share on Twitter
  • BB.
    BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 33,623 admin
    #8
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar

    What ever it is/will be--Japan is going back to nuclear power:

    Three years after Fukushima tragedy, Japan makes U-turn on nuclear energy
    The terrible Fukushima nuclear accident has not stopped Japan from revamping its safety measures and restarting its nuclear reactors. Thirty-five years after its far less terrible Three Mile Island accident, the US still hesitates to embrace nuclear power.
    ...
    “I would forecast that of the 49 remaining units that half could come back over the next five years,” says Tom Drolet, a nuclear expert and consultant in Englewood, Fla., in an interview. “But no new nuclear units will be committed in the next 10 years because the Nuclear Regulation Authority is busy reviewing the return of existing units and because the public has to see that those will be successful.”
    ...
    Then there are the economic costs. In May 2012, Japan turned off the last of its 54 nuclear reactors. Altogether, Japan has increased its reliance on imported liquefied natural gas to meet much of its electricity needs at a cost of more than $65 billion, says Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu. And the price of importing fossil fuels is getting even more expensive because of a weak yen.

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #9
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar

    Great.
    Says the guy living in a province of Canada that is getting the junk from Japan's disaster washed up on our shores.
    · Share on Twitter
  • SolarPowered
    SolarPowered Solar Expert Posts: 626 ✭✭✭
    #10
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar
    Cariboocoot wrote: »
    Great.
    Says the guy living in a province of Canada that is getting the junk from Japan's disaster washed up on our shores.
    Whether or not it's a political agenda or not scientist are claiming the level of environmental absorption causes no serious effects to the California coast lines. However in Hawaii and California people have been fishing out tuna 5 times their normal size since the blast and people have been told not to consume due to the levels of radioactive poisoning to the fish.
    Japan has no alternative but to go nuclear because of population density per sq/ft. To many people for a small island and the level of energy consumption is high.
    Nuclear power would cause less impact to environmental exposure if built miles below the earth surface. Geo thermal cooling at those depths actually control the conditions better. However the cost to build is billions more than building at surface grade.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #11
    Re: Parity in Texas for Solar

    The effect of the radioactivity is never serious for those who aren't near it.
    The Chernobyl disaster, for example, has caused very little damage here on the other side of the world.

    It is easier to clean up from any other sort of pollution than it is to counteract the effects of radiation.

    Just stating a fact.
    · Share on Twitter

Categories