17 ms·
Idaho sets record low solar price as it starts on shift to 100pct renewables
- mrpopo 8y agoIdaho energy profile overview : https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ID https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ID Hydroelectric power supplied 60% of net electricity generation in Idaho in 2017. If a large share of it were pumped storage hydro, that would be very helpful for a 100% renewable target (free electricity storage to replace batteries). Idaho generates 0.4% of the USA's electricity.
- lucidguppy 8y agoI still like these articles. They should still be published. If we cannot go full renewable here - why would we be able to do it anywhere else?
- Jedd 8y agoWhere is 'here' in your world?
- Arnt 8y agoYou don't need pump storage when you have 60% hydro, all you need is to change the rate of production. When the sun shines so the shops run out of sunscreen and facebook explodes with complaints you go down to 20% hydro, when the situation is the opposite and facebook explodes with complaints, you go up to 100% hydro (both numbers totally fudged of course).
- C1sc0cat 8y agoPumped storage is for managing peak demand - you can go from zero to huge amounts of power very very quickly and avoid using the expensive and polluting standby by capacity.
- Arnt 8y agoI'm curious. If you have 60% hydro, you have a lot of water coming into the reservoirs from snow melt. Why would you bother with pumping up more water from below?
- reubenmorais 8y agoThey might not be able to change production quickly enough in hydro plants to serve daily demand peaks, or the peaks might be higher than the total produced amount from the 60% hydro.
- Aromasin 8y agoThere's rarely ever enough water coming from upstream to counter the huge amount of water that gets dumped during peak energy consumption hours. If you've got extra grid power left over that's not being used during trough hours and it's not used to refill the reservoir, or stored in some other way (lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen gas production etc.) it's just going to go to waste.
- Arnt 8y agoI see. That doesn't apply to the present subject though; Idaho uses mostly snow, and for a reservoir that buffers most of a winter's snow, a day's peak/trough energy consumption is a rounding error.
- kortilla 8y ago>There's rarely ever enough water coming from upstream Not the case in Idaho
- gnode 8y ago
- dmurray 8y agoPumped storage can't contribute to net electricity generation, so all 60% has to be from regular hydro. Unless I misunderstand what is meant by "net" here.
- masklinn 8y agoYou seem right, but maybe they mean some of the currently "regular" hydro would be converted to pumped hydro[0], allowing for storage & smoothing of other renewable energy sources. [0] most dams are not suitable for conversion[1], but some can be e.g. France's Bissorte was converted from the original 75MW gravity dam to a 750MW pumped hydro station in the 80s. [1] at least not without gigantic work to create a discharge reservoir from nothing
- Jedd 8y agoThere'll be the usual pro-fission claims from the anti-renewables taskforce I'm sure, but these kinds of stories continue to boost claims that we can move away from fossil+nostorage without any significant disruption.
- maxerickson 8y agoThey have 60% hydro there. It's not an especially useful data point in places where hydro is fully developed and accounts for a much smaller fraction of generation.
- Jedd 8y agoHydro's great, but without a low-end storage for the water, it's a one-way journey, which is an unfortunate exposure. There's also some unsettling calculations around methane generation from flooded flora. Still, long-term undeniably better than fossil or nuclear fission.
- DennisP 8y agoI would dispute your fission claim but I guess I'll refrain from kicking off yet another nuclear discussion in a renewables thread.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- swebs 8y agoI'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you want hydro stations to pump water upwards when there is an energy surplus? What problems would that solve that a dam wouldn't?
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoThat is actually a thing, where surplus infelxible solar/wind/coal power is used to pump water up to a reservoir that can then be used as hydro when it is needed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectric...
- forsaken 8y agoCurious of the politics that has folks in Idaho talking so warmly about renewable energy. If you believe the national news, all red states want to keep burning coal. Curious about the background here.
- chaosbutters 8y agosecond this question.
- kevin42 8y agoIdahoan here. Just a guess here, but most people don't realize how pristine and beautiful it really is here. The reason I mention that is, outdoor activities like hunting fishing, camping, boating, etc. are a huge part of people's lives here. We have massive areas of protected wilderness. My point is, as conservative as it is here, I think even our conservatives care more for the environment than average, because they spend a lot of time enjoying it. It's a similar thing with wildlife. The avid hunters are often the biggest protectors of habitats. Same with fisherman and rivers and streams.
- linuxlizard 8y agoAnother Idahoan here. Agreed. The outdoors here is very valued. Idaho also has a lot of hydroelectric generation which I think also counts are renewable?
- SlowRobotAhead 8y agoYes, take hydro away and the entire conversation changes. Now... how many people actually understand the effect hydro has on the environment? There is a reason that the big sandy beaches seen around highway 12 around McCall and Riggins are fairly rare in Idaho now.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoWashingtonian here: they drill in the negative effects of hydro into our heads in high school civics class (but it’s primarily centered around fish). We still do it, but have began removing many of the older less productive dams in the state (eg on Elwa a few years back).
- waynenilsen 8y ago* After subsidies
- thechao 8y agoObviously. My favorite “subsidy” is the one where carbon combustion energy sources get to make the Earth literally unlivable for my kids & grandkids. I call it the “being alive” subsidy.
- tim333 8y agoI don't see a mention of subsidies. Any details?
- Proven 8y agoIn all likelihood the project got some federal or other funding, like most of them do. Second, in a way it is subsidized because there's no guarantee they can supply any amount of energy over a given period of time, so traditional energy producers still need to be able to build for 100% of demand, and idle it when there is sun (which in turn makes them lower utilized and seemingly relatively more expensive). Yeah there are some batteries but how much supply these solar boys they guarantee after 3 rainy days? Likely none whatsoever. It is therefore almost almost completely useless but the sleezebags who pulled this off get a multi-decade commitment to get paid for 100% of the paltry amount they manage to generate over a long period of time, although there is no actual justification for it because all power generating capacity still must be built using traditional, reliable energy sources for time when the charlatans can't deliver. What's cheaper, run a power plant at 83% instead of 80%, or run the same power plant at 80% utilization and commit to paying these guys millions more just because?
- imtringued 8y agoDoes unsubsidized electricity even exist? Germany doesn't shutdown old coal plants although it can replace them with existing gas plants because the coal plants employ more people. Even Trump is supporting coal merely because it helps coal workers.
- tim333 8y agoBatteries are getting more reasonable too and dropping about 15% per annum. Roll on green energy. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-this-year-100-kwh-tesla-battery-packs-in-2020/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-c...
- mrjaeger 8y agoNot being cynical but genuinely curious: Is that rate of price decrease (15%) expected to keep up in the near/medium term? Is there any sort of Moore's law for battery cost?
- paulsutter 8y agoIt’s called the manufacturing learning curve, it was discovered in the 1940s relating to WWII aircraft production, and it’s not a special property of semiconductors. Just somehow “Moore’s Law” got popularized in the press.
- dgacmu 8y agoNo other technology stayed on as steep an exponential improvement curve for 60 years in the way semiconductors did. They were, in fact, quite remarkable.
- dalbasal 8y agoI think transistors were unique in that we had/have a serious ability to consume more of them. Compuers are half price?!! I'll take three. When the price of computing halved, we consumed more than twice as much, so that the industry still grew. Most other products/industries didn't have that kind of demand curve. Eventually, we had enough textile and we were happy to pay less for more (rather than pay more for way more). The textile industry stopped growing and learning/price reduction slowed too. When the price of computers dropped, we paid the same for more powerful computers and more people decided to buy computers because the computers were now more useful. When compuers got powerful enough that we started paying less per computer, we still bought more computers in the form of ipods, VR goggles and smart toilets. More demand, more production, more learning, lower price...question: If the product is cheaper, will you spend more or less in total? If the answer is "yes," rinse and repeat until the anser is no.
- zaroth 8y agoThe greatest strength of technology is the exponential gains in capability at constant cost over time, or alternatively the exponential decrease in cost over time for the same capability. Sometimes that exponential gain gets partially squandered to provide for greater productivity or lower cost development or marketing gimmicks or tiny little improvements in the fringe UX which can offer subtle delights. Other times the product is something constant and perfectly standardized like MWs or kWh (generation or storage of energy) and we can sit back as a society and watch the prices fall, fall, fall. The endgame is abundant electricity at a fraction of the ecological cost used pervasively to power every aspect of the economy. Electric cars aren’t sci-fi anymore. Now we dream of flying through electrical power alone, which is about as ostentatious as it gets. It’s perhaps not the popular opinion on HN, and obviously a lot is at stake, but this is the making of the carbon-neutral economy, and it’s being done in a technologically and market driven approach that doesn’t involve trillions of dollars of taxes or regulatory burden. I do not believe it will prove to be too little or too late. I absolutely believe that technologies will continue to evolve and be discovered that allow us to move our global ecological impact from the red (deficit) to the green (surplus) and in the very long term from a political sense, but in the blink of an eye for our planet, this 21st century panic will seem really quite overblown. It’s crucially import for people to care. For people to dream up new ways to stop damaging the planet and even heal the planet. I just think time and again we underestimate human ingenuity and overestimate calamity. Global climate [change] indeed impacts millions of people every year and carries a massive economic cost. I have absolute faith in the scientists and the inventors to constantly push us toward a healthy, clean, efficient, and abundant future.
- matthewdgreen 8y agoI am hopeful the same way you are. But nobody should ignore the fact that current developments in solar panel prices were heavily driven by government policy. Unguided market forces may get there eventually, but we don't have enough time for "eventually". (And we certainly don't have any time for misguided plans that actually try to subsidize carbon emissions, which is a big chunk of our current policy.)
- 8y ago
- Proven 8y agoNowhere does it say that the output they committed to buying is 24x7, so in other words the same capacity must be built and held spare using non-renewable sources. Complete garbage.
- droithomme 8y agoThere are 62 companies that have an address matching 515 N 27th St Boise, ID 83702. The companies are Helm Pv Solar One LLC, Tumbleweed Energy LLC, Grand View Solar Pv One, Life After The Fire Inc, Acc LLC, Thompson River Co Gen LLC, Richardson Investments LLC, Farm 2 Market LLC, Grand View Pv Solar One LLC, Mcomm LLC, Meadow View Investment Properties LLC, Alternative Power Development Northwest LLC, Bubba Gump Algae LLC, Pleasanton Property LLC, Global Trade Consulting Services LLC, Ameci Coffee Wine Bar, Earth Paw LLC, Solutionssite Inc, One Eighty Networks Inc, Best Buddies LLC, Occasionz Party Store LLC, Idaho Farm Energy Association Inc, Just Horse Inn Around LLC, Postural Integrity LLC, Clpr Investments LLC, Helm Pv Solar One LLC, Grand View Pv Solar Four LLC, Grand View Pv Solar Three LLC, Lhn LLC, Lifelong Learning Academy LLC, Orem Family Wind LLC, Mariah Wind LLC, Gonzalez Gonzalez LLC, Ch Property Services LLC, River Time Yoga LLC, B4dc Freight LLC, Hammerhead Enterprises LLC, Jerrod LLC, Ies Language Foundation LLC, Grand View Pv Solar Five A LLC, Magic Dirt LLC, Black Sands Solar, Black Sands Solar A, Jackpot Solar North LLC, Overton Solar LLC, Jackpot Solar South LLC, Jackpot Solar East LLC, Jackpot Solar West LLC, Carter Solar One LLC, Jackpot Solar 2 I LLC, Jackpot Solar 2 Ii LLC, Jackpot Solar 2 Iii LLC, Jackpot Solar 2 Iv LLC, Jackpot Solar 2 V LLC, Franklin Energy Storage Four LLC, Franklin Energy Storage One LLC, Franklin Energy Storage Three LLC, Franklin Energy Storage Two LLC, Jackpot Solar Annex LLC, Franklin Solar LLC, Jackpot LLC, and Jackpot Holdings LLC. The sign outside the address, which is a small single family home, announces a law office. This particular law office has been filing lawsuits against the Idaho power company for over a decade. The Jackpot etc LLCs seem to connect to an alias out of Nevada. There's various information on these entities in a variety of places but no one's put together a really complete picture. Here's some interesting background from three years ago: https://www.puc.idaho.gov/press/161007_IPCJackpotSolar.pdf https://www.puc.idaho.gov/press/161007_IPCJackpotSolar.pdf
- dmeeker 8y agoThat's not surprising -- those companies are all using their attorneys for registered agent services, and the law firm states that they specialize in energy companies -- both transactions and litigation. It appears that the developers of solar projects follow the same pattern of real-estate developers: each project gets its own LLC, which allows them to contain any potential liability for the project, as well as sell ownership interests in the LLC to raise the funds for the project. Per your linked article (and easily confirmable through public records), the Jackpot* series are all projects of Robert Paul of Alternative Power Development who has been quoted in the Idaho press about solar for the last decade.
- YeahSureWhyNot 8y agois this an australian magazine writing about american Idaho or they have an idaho in Australia too?
- Splendor 8y agoThis is about American Idaho.
- elsonrodriguez 8y agoIt worries me that we worry more about the monetary cost of producing energy more than the energy cost of producing energy.
- niftich 8y agoIdaho Power is one of the three big power companies that covers a portion of Idaho -- they serve the southwest, Avista is in the northwest, and PacifiCorp is in spots in the southeast [1]. Idaho Power has been, for several years, planning to pull out as a partner from the 3 coal power plants it has an ownership share in: North Valmy in NV, Jim Bridger in WY, and Boardman in OR [2]. Jim Bridger will have soon been due for an expensive upgrade because of environmental regulations, Boardman has seen consistent pressure from Oregon activists and regulators to bring the shutdown date closer, and North Valmy has seen less and less use because the other owner has succeeded meeting most of the Northern Nevada demand with a robust mix of natgas and solar, but also has fresh interconnects with Southern Nevada and Idaho. In 2018, Idaho Power also joined [3] the Western Energy Imbalance Market, which streamlines realtime energy trading in the WECC interconnect. As time goes on and coal plants are retired, coal's share will decline in the energy mix, and there will be an increasing amount of quasi-'baseload' solar available to buy in the energy market. And for the times in the day when the solar generation drops off and natgas plants would often be the next sellers, Idaho Power has plenty of its own hydro it can deploy to compensate. But note that despite their well-situated position with renewables, their target for 100% renewables is still 2045 -- relatively far off. [1] (PDF) https://oemr.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/3.6.18-Energy-Landscape-2018.pdf https://oemr.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/3.6.18-Energy-Land... [2] http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/16/power-company-maps-energy-plan-for-idaho-and-orego/ http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/16/power-company-m... [3] https://www.idahopower.com/news/idaho-power-customers-will-benefit-regional-energy-market/ https://www.idahopower.com/news/idaho-power-customers-will-b...
- sremani 8y ago>> and for the times in the day when the solar generation drops of The problem with areas north of 42N is not that times of day.. its the times of year! Jun 22 - 15:30 hrs of sunlight Dec 22 - 9:00 hrs of sunlight there are 206 sunny days per year in Boise (could not find twin falls).
- philipkglass 8y agoThe seasonality of solar is reasonably well matched to Idaho's consumption patterns. The 3 months with the highest demand for fossil generated electricity in Idaho are July, August, and September. This is in contrast to e.g. Germany where wintertime demand is highest. Source: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/ Awkwardly, this excellent data is all in Excel files. I got the numbers from Monthly data from Electric Power Monthly - Fossil Fuel Consumption for Electricity Generation by Year, Industry Type and State, using sheet 2018_Preliminary inside the spreadsheet.
- DubiousPusher 8y ago> at a cost of US2.175¢/kWh Are those units correct? Isn't a kWh of power much cheaper than that already? edit: My mistake. I was reading that as $/kWh. You just don't see stuff priced in cents very often anymore.
- mbell 8y agoThis is a rather misleading title, the article is about a single company (Idaho Power), not the state of Idaho. The state still gets ~33% of its electricity from out of state, mostly from coal plants. In terms of overall energy, the state uses more than 3 times as much energy from fossil fuels as it generates from hydro, by the looks of it more natural gas based energy is used for heating than hydro is used for power. Unless my math is off the solar plant is question represents 0.077% of the states energy usage. Source: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ID https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ID