The biggest solar-plus-storage project in the US just came online.

[fromport]

The biggest solar-plus-storage project in the US just came online

The new California installation has nearly 2 million solar panels, more than 120,000 batteries, and an enormous amount of clean energy capacity.

www.canarymedia.com

The biggest solar-plus-storage project in the US just came online | The new California installation has nearly 2 million solar panels, more than 120,000 batteries, and an enormous amount of clean energy capacity.

This particular project has a generating capacity of 875 megawatts from solar along with 3,287 megawatt-hours of energy storage.

 

[OffGridForGood]

They list the project area as 4600 acres = 7.16 sq.miles
I recall a few talks, where it was stated " a solar area 100miles x 100miles (10,000 sqmiles) would collect all the energy needed by the whole country.
10,000 sqmiles / 7.2 = 1/1389th (0.07% )
we just need 1389 more solar farms this size. {and just need to build 53 of these per year for 26 years...}

Put another way, this solar installation has 1.9 million PV panels, and to build out 1389 more installations of this scale would need a total of 26.4 billion PV panels. (worldwide PV production is about 1 billion panels per year) it would take at current production rates, 26 years to build just the PV panels needed for the USA, alone. If USA energy use is 16% of the world total, then 6x the 26.4 billion PV panels are needed worldwide. About 162 years of 2023 rate of PV panel production.

Put another way, the Installation was quoted to cost $1.7 Billion (including the large ESS and PV)
to build 1389 more of these, at the same cost is about $2.3 Trillion. 10% of the USA annual GDP - spread over the 26 years it would take to produce the PV panels (at current world production rates) this would amount to 90 billion per year. Yes, costs would change over a 26 year period, costs would also scale if 53 installations this size were built per year, every year, for the next 26 years. In 26 years we would be due to change out the PV from the first built installations with new panels.

The 162 years of (2023) production to build out the energy needs of the entire world would cost in the order of 14.5 Trillion, or 14% of the world Annual GDP, ie spread over 162 years, the cost is about 1% of world GDP per year.

 

[green mountain boys]

Well... That will give me something to chew on.

 

[OffGridForGood]

YMMV

 

[ksmithaz1]

Still kind of interesting, but nobody bothers to mention maintenance overhead either. I'm guessing it might be higher than generators. God help you if you need to dismantle it. Compare it to:

GEN-W Water-cooled Gas Generator | GE Gas Power

GE’s GEN-W water-cooled generators output requirements exceed the capability of air and hydrogen-cooled units. Learn more about GEN-W gas generators.

www.ge.com

That will not take 10 acres of real estate.

 

[Danke]

Just build more modern nuclear plants.

 

[ksmithaz1]

Just build more modern nuclear plants.

Even better but does not react as well to rapid changes in power requirements. A natural gas generator is the #1 easiest way to rapidly ramp up power generation to meet radical demand increases. For bulk power nuclear is hard to beat, you just can't turn it on and off every 10 minutes.

 

[fromport]

Just build more modern nuclear plants.

Like in the UK ?

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station delayed by up to four more years

The construction of the power station, which will be the UK's first new nuclear plant in decades, could cost as much as £46bn to complete, energy giant EDF has said.

news.sky.com

The Somerset plant was originally supposed to have started producing electricity from 2017 at a cost of £18bn.
The final cost of the power station, which will be the UK's first new nuclear plant in decades, could also end up being as much as £46bn.
The start of electricity production at the site had been scheduled for June 2027 - but a re-evaluation of the schedule suggests that one of the two planned reactors in Somerset will not be ready until 2029.

And this is outdated information, at least for the PV cost:

 

[Hedges]

Put another way, the Installation was quoted to cost $1.7 Billion (including the large ESS and PV)
to build 1389 more of these, at the same cost is about $2.3 Trillion. 10% of the USA annual GDP - spread over the 26 years it would take to produce the PV panels (at current world production rates) this would amount to 90 billion per year.

All the other figures you quoted sounded massive, except this one.

I think we dropped $1T on Iraq, another $1T on Covid.

$90B/year / 350M people = $257/year or $21/month per person. For all utility consumption?
Not bad, I say.

 

[timselectric]

Just build more modern nuclear plants.

This

Even better but does not react as well to rapid changes in power requirements.

Plus storage for a buffer.

Mike drop lol

 

[Checkthisout]

The assertion that 100 miles x 100 miles would give us all our energy.

What does that mean? Current electrical demand or if all of our coal and oil stuff (gasoline, diesel etc) was converted, it would also meet that need?

 

[Checkthisout]

All the other figures you quoted sounded massive, except this one.

I think we dropped $1T on Iraq, another $1T on Covid.

$90B/year / 350M people = $257/year or $21/month per person. For all utility consumption?
Not bad, I say.

So guys, where are these solar farms going to go?

You going to put them all in Arizona and then drive the batteries to the northeast?

A solar farm of a given size in SoCal is going to produce a lot more energy than one located in Maine.

 

[ksmithaz1]

This

Plus storage for a buffer.

Mike drop lol

That same acreage could build out a large nuke plant, but you could do batteries along side a nuclear plant, just not enough to match output. I believe they don't ramp output up/down as easily but if you needed like a maintenance window for a turbine or something? By comparison Palo Verde is around 4GW. The plant above is no slouch, but it can be replaced with a single gas generator. Most plants have more than one gas generator, so you can take them down for maintenance, so you'd probably go with a couple of smaller ones, and your footprint would be pretty small, but I don't think 3 gennys are going to run you $2B.

 

[Hedges]

So guys, where are these solar farms going to go?

You going to put them all in Arizona and then drive the batteries to the northeast?

A solar farm of a given size in SoCal is going to produce a lot more energy than one located in Maine.

I was hoping that when contract for water from Phoenix expired in 2000, LA would dry up and blow away.
Instead, the built a canal and stole the water which should flow into the SF Bay and also supply us with water.
Surely that must be bad for the ecosystem, natural fish hatcheries, etc.

I propose to put up PV panels where LA once stood.
And reduce the population to only citizens and lawful permanent residents, who can make their way along the service roads between the panels.

 

[ksmithaz1]

So guys, where are these solar farms going to go?

You going to put them all in Arizona and then drive the batteries to the northeast?

A solar farm of a given size in SoCal is going to produce a lot more energy than one located in Maine.

Palo Verde ships power all over the west coast.

 

[ksmithaz1]

I might note they are dropping large numbers of solar farms all around south of the Palo Verde plant as well.

 

[Tulex]

So guys, where are these solar farms going to go?

You going to put them all in Arizona and then drive the batteries to the northeast?

A solar farm of a given size in SoCal is going to produce a lot more energy than one located in Maine.

And CA uses a lot more energy than Maine, it's all relative.

Maine

 

[Danke]

Even better but does not react as well to rapid changes in power requirements. A natural gas generator is the #1 easiest way to rapidly ramp up power generation to meet radical demand increases. For bulk power nuclear is hard to beat, you just can't turn it on and off every 10 minutes.

Bring those online too, if we need more.

 

[Danke]

Like in the UK ?

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station delayed by up to four more years

The construction of the power station, which will be the UK's first new nuclear plant in decades, could cost as much as £46bn to complete, energy giant EDF has said.

news.sky.com

The Somerset plant was originally supposed to have started producing electricity from 2017 at a cost of £18bn.
The final cost of the power station, which will be the UK's first new nuclear plant in decades, could also end up being as much as £46bn.
The start of electricity production at the site had been scheduled for June 2027 - but a re-evaluation of the schedule suggests that one of the two planned reactors in Somerset will not be ready until 2029.

And this is outdated information, at least for the PV cost:

View attachment 191542

They’ve invested over $5 trillion over the last four decades in alternate energy. With about a one percent reduction, 82% to 81%.

 

[Checkthisout]

And CA uses a lot more energy than Maine, it's all relative.

Maine

Not in winter.