-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Gigafactory Investor Thread
- Thread starter teddyg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Gigafactory TSLA
EIA chart does not agree:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
I see plenty of renewable energy options cheaper than conventional energy.
More expensive like as in "Free?"
Sun, wind combine to give Germany some free electricity - CSMonitor.com
Huh? I don't. The cheapest conventional is around $65/MW, and the cheapest renewable is $80 (wind, which can only be built in certain areas). Solar PV is around $130 before subsidies. And these are projected numbers for year 2019. Hydro is relatively cheap, of course, but we've built all the hydro plants that we can.
Geothermal is not renewable? And scroll down at the minimum-maximum costs. California is located in some of the best sunlight in the US being on the west coast. Solar can be as low as
101.4. And this is for utility scale solar, localized solar would be cheaper.
I also disagree that we built all the hydro plants we can, we can build plenty more.
And using 2019 numbers is fair game since we are talking about a 2020 deadline.
These numbers also do not factor in social and environmental costs which do not favor fossil fuels.
Sheesh, calm down. Geothermal is renewable, but again, there are limited places where you can use it. Since it is so economical, and many states mandate renewable energy production, you can bet that all the geothermal plants that can be built are being built. But sure, if all renewable energy production mandates could be made with geothermal, energy costs would indeed go down. But it isn't the case.
My point still stands, our electric energy bills are going up due to renewable mandates, and your link shows why.
Utility scale solar is actually cheaper than residential solar on a per kWh produced basis, so I'm not sure how you came to the opposite conclusion.
All forms of energy generation have varying amounts of social and environmental costs (and benefits). I wasn't making a larger value judgement, just pointing out that renewable mandates cost us ratepayers extra money. In particular the renewal mandates do not reduce electricity costs which is the original assertion that I was refuting.
I am calm. Nothing to get worked up about. There is plenty of geothermal potential, especially in the west. The west can probably get most of its power from geothermal:
http://www.climatetechwiki.org/site...les/images/extra/geothermal_resources_u.s.jpg
NREL puts US geothermal potential at 31,300twh per year: (or almost 10X the current energy production of the US)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf
Last edited:
I agree - total costs including building plants, huge government subsidies and externality costs should be included in a calculation of total energy production costs. Of course if you do that renewables still come out ahead.
in terms of your contention that renewables will increase rates I have yet to see you post any data in support. The Germany example is a situation where renewables have led to rate decreases.
Overall solar and wind are quickly becoming cheaper than coal, which is one of the main reasons why utilities are investing. And hydro has been much lower for a long time - ask anyone in the Pacific Northwest why their electricity is cheaper than the rest of the country.
Thanks for the link. I didn't realize there was enhanced geothermal power production, I only knew about hydro geothermal, which, as your link shows, has limited capacity.
Enhanced geothermal basically creates two boreholes deep into tight rock formations, and pumps water (presumably not just water, but with some additives) up and down 5 kilometers or so to capture the heat within those rock formations. It isn't a true renewable energy source as each plant is only expected to work for 20-30 years before all the heat is extracted from that plant's area. So I'd call it a green technology, not renewable. It is also experimental. So there might be that much energy capacity, IF the current experimental power plants being built work out. At any rate, you can't build a lot of plants now as the economics are still being figured out.
BTW, Are those power numbers in the report per year? I couldn't find anywhere in the report something that actually defined what the potential and capacity numbers truly were.
No, German electricity rates have not been dropping. Read this:
Renewables and Costs in Germany | The Energy Collective
Germany may be unique in that they actually break out how much their renewable mandates cost them on their electric bills.
Germany is also going through another transition when they decided recently to abandon their green nuclear power plants, and are replacing that needed power production with ... Coal.
Wholesale electric costs have been dropping lately in Germany, but that is due to more coal coming on line. It certainly hasn't been reflected in German consumer electric rates.
Of course Hydro is why electric rates are so low in the Northwest. Hydro is great, but most economic and environmentally feasible hydro plant locations have already been built. I suppose you could theoretically dam up things like the Truckee river in Lake Tahoe to generate electricity, but good luck getting it approved!
As the previous links show, coal is a much cheaper way to generate electricity than solar and wind. The only way it becomes uneconomic is if you introduce artificial carbon caps. Which has the effect of increasing consumer electric bills. Which is my overall point. Have your electric bills gone down as renewable energy has gone up? I didn't think so.
chickensevil
Active Member
The prices are coming down though and are getting to a pretty good level of starting to be cost competitive.
The better question is, what do the the utility companies charge vs their cost of generation.
Can homeowners generate power for less dollars than the utility will sell it for?
Can business owners generate power for less dollars than they are paying?
This competitive paradigm will improve costs across the board. If you are a business owner, how much are your demand charges? There is a reason Walmart is the number one user of solar power in the U.S.
Can homeowners generate power for less dollars than the utility will sell it for?
Can business owners generate power for less dollars than they are paying?
This competitive paradigm will improve costs across the board. If you are a business owner, how much are your demand charges? There is a reason Walmart is the number one user of solar power in the U.S.
green1
Active Member
Yes, easily. The problem is that we can't STORE that power cheaply, so the utility can still set up a situation where it makes very little sense to go solar due to paying a fraction for your excess electricity vs what you pay them to buy it back.
Yes, the numbers are per year. You can use the potential power capacity and do the math to realize that it is per year. Also, looking at the chart, California can generate 100% of their power from hydrothermal.
In the west, a lot of the hydro potential has been built (not all), but there is a lot of hydro potential in the east which would be fairly economic to build and no need to add new dams:
U.S. Hydropower Potential from Existing Non-powered Dams | Department of Energy
Also, if your comparing the chart I showed vs coal. Solar in the lower cost brackets is cheaper than coal in the higher brackets and wind is definitely cheaper than coal. The question just comes down to if you are aiming for 100% renewable energy or 33%. If you are aiming for 33% then you can build highly efficient natural gas power stations that supplement wind. Of course if your goal is 100% renewable, that would not work as the wind generation would be tried down the the natural gas.
Last edited:
So the extracted heat returns after extraction, but over a very long time. That would make oil, coal, nat gas renewable albeit not green. under that definition, I don't think there is a non-renewable source given sufficient time. It's the rate that matters (not size
)My friend considered buying some of this land awhile ago. He had this to say about it: (published with his blessing)
"it was supposed to be developed about 10 years ago as an "inland port." massive warehouses were built out there. essentially, it was going to be a hub for nearly all trucking in the US
it's off of I-35 and I-20
but the perot kids (who own a lot of warehousing in NW Ft. Worth) lobbied like crazy amongst the local politicians
and the company trying to build up that whole area filed for bankruptcy (to re-shuffle)
that area is still undeveloped and very poor
and the county commissioner (john wiley price)...the one that was using all of his might to shut it down....has been under investigation of the fbi for the last 3 years
he has little standing anymore to oppose the project
and southern dallas county needs the jobs. it's rural and poor down there"
Also, we just realized: SpaceX receives FAA approval for proposed spaceport in Texas | Fox News
Tesla is likley pushing to get the anti-sales legislature overturned. I don't doubt that will follow (edit: somewhat easily) easily after both spacex and Tesla developing in Texas to such a magnitude.
"it was supposed to be developed about 10 years ago as an "inland port." massive warehouses were built out there. essentially, it was going to be a hub for nearly all trucking in the US
it's off of I-35 and I-20
but the perot kids (who own a lot of warehousing in NW Ft. Worth) lobbied like crazy amongst the local politicians
and the company trying to build up that whole area filed for bankruptcy (to re-shuffle)
that area is still undeveloped and very poor
and the county commissioner (john wiley price)...the one that was using all of his might to shut it down....has been under investigation of the fbi for the last 3 years
he has little standing anymore to oppose the project
and southern dallas county needs the jobs. it's rural and poor down there"
Also, we just realized: SpaceX receives FAA approval for proposed spaceport in Texas | Fox News
Tesla is likley pushing to get the anti-sales legislature overturned. I don't doubt that will follow (edit: somewhat easily) easily after both spacex and Tesla developing in Texas to such a magnitude.
Similar threads
- Article
