Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla To Power Gigafactory With World's Largest Solar Rooftop Installation (inhabitat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the world-record dept.

Last week, Tesla announced that its Gigafactory has begun mass production of lithium-ion battery cells in Nevada. But the company failed to mention one thrilling detail in their January 4 announcement: the Gigafactory could be powered by the world's largest solar rooftop installation. According to an investor handout, a 70-megawatt (MW) solar array along with ground solar panels could let the factory operate entirely on clean energy. Inhabitat reports: The 70 MW solar array would be around seven times larger than any rooftop arrays currently installed, according to Tesla's exciting handout released by Electrek and confirmed as genuine by The Verge. The rooftop array currently boasting the title of world's largest is a 11.5 MW installation in India. The United States' biggest rooftop array is a 10 MW array atop a California Whirlpool distribution center. SolarCity will likely manufacture the solar panels, according to The Verge, as Tesla acquired the solar energy company in November. Powerpacks will store any excess energy generated by the vast solar installation. Tesla said in the handout the "all-electric" factory will be able to run with greater efficiency and will produce zero carbon emissions. Heating and water use at the Gigafactory will also be sustainable. In the handout, Tesla said a large part of heating for the building would come from waste heat obtained from production processes. Also, "Gigafactory's closed-loop water supply system uses six different treatment systems to efficiently re-circulate about 1.5 million liters (that's around 400,000 gallons) of water, representing an 80 percent reduction in fresh water usage compared with standard processes." Tesla even said they're building a recycling facility at the Gigafactory that will be able to "safely reprocess" battery cells, packs, and modules to obtain metal usable in new cells.

68 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Recycle at the point of use by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Totally makes sense.
    Don't know how much waste the recycle process produces, but not having to ship the material but across the street will save a bundle.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:Recycle at the point of use by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Totally makes sense.

      Sure does. Buy your own product for power and claim it as a capital expense, and get US taxpayers to help with a big tax credit. You get all that plus get to say Solar City sales are increasing. Smart move by Musk.

  2. Re:Now if they... by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    Sure you could but you don't have enough surface area to charge an electric car in a reasonable time.
    Although it's plenty to run the stereo indefinitely.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  3. Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Anyone RTFA, but below the Solar Factory is another article about Tesla building a freaking battery backup for the city of Los Angeles for use as a peak leveler.

    This is re-volting news for the anti solar PV crowd.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who's paying? Musk has received billions of government aid. Is it a good investment, considering the outcome - a series of toys for the very rich? I don't think so.

      Thanks, Obama.

      Who's paying for oil and NatGas and Petrochemical and Ethanol subsidies? If solar was the only and only ever thing ever subsidized, you might have a point. But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten, well, let's hear you bitch about those.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten

      What huge subsidies are you referring to? All of the articles I've seen about fossil fuel subsidies are mostly bullshit. They'll include intangibles like "not having to pay for cancer or climate change caused by coal... that's worth $89 trillion!!!" as a subsidy. Or they'll include as a subsidy the full cost of the highway system, because "that's just for gas burning cars man! that's worth trillions!!!" (I guess they'll have to give up that line now that there are viable electric cars in mass production.) Or some percentage of the defense budget because "muh middle east wars are obviously 100% for oil."

    3. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten

      What huge subsidies are you referring to? All of the articles I've seen about fossil fuel subsidies are mostly bullshit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Pick which ones you want to debunk.

      I'll make note that of the renewables, the major subsidy there is for fuel ethanol, which most people that are interested in renewable energy don't want.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.

      One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".

      So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.

      This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.

      Another one...

      The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

      1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)

      Now I don't know if you know anything about taxes, but foreign tax credits are not a subsidy to fossil fuels. They are part of the tax treaties we have with many many countries. I get a foreign tax credit every year (about $2... but hey...) for withheld taxes on dividends from foreign corporations that I hold in some mutual funds.

      So yes, I'm sure that if Exxon is producing oil from Canada, and must pay a royalty to the Canadian province where it's happening and also to the Canadian federal government, they get an equivalent tax credit here... that's to prevent double taxation because otherwise they'd be paying taxes on the full price of a barrel of oil, when in reality up to half of it is directly given to Canada.

    5. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.

      Okay

      So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.

      This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.

      Another one...

      You could have stopped at "anti nuclear" and that'ts all you needed to say. Here is your problem. The moment you utter or write that phrase, most people just stop listening. You and your ilk have a lot to do with that, as the simultaneous nuclear is hte safest" the fine images and video of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and teh condescending attitude that anyone against or even ambivalent about nuclear poer is a stuid asshole just make folks thing "Bitch, please!" How's that workin' out for ya'all?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"? Did you think I just applied that label because I assume they're anti-nuclear due to their use in the article? No, here's the wikipedia page about them: "Energy Fair in the United Kingdom is a group of six people leading a campaign that claims that the nuclear power industry receives unfair subsidies"

      That's just what they do. They have tried to come up with every conceivable point to use against nuclear power, whether they are rational or not.

      Either it was a poor assumption on your part, or you know better in which case you're just the type of person who enjoys living in their bubble. I mean really that's shocking, anybody interested in talking about pro OR anti nuclear power should not dismiss others for saying "pro" or "anti" -- it's like a joke.

    7. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"?

      No, not really. But what yu wrote told me what you were going to write after that. And I for one woud prefer not to dilute the discussion with what it will turn into as soon as we mention anti-nuclear. Subsidies, subsidies subsidies. we needn't have actual cash handouts. A subsidy might be a tax break, exemption from environmental regulations, limitations on liabilities. All things that reduce operating costs. Because money that you don't have to spend is just money that you either keep or distribute to the stakeholders.

      And remember, I'm not personally against subsidies as long as they are applied properly. For new technology that might need a kickstart - absolutely. Unless we decide that the US is going to cede technology advances to other countries, who are willing to have government help drive technology forward. Giving breaks to established or never to be profitable industries like corn based ethanol. No. Oil and gas seem to be able to make a profit anyhow, and Ethanol based on corn never will, and is just free money for farmers. Nuclear liability limits? I'm divided on that one, but it's pretty certain that the price of an insurance policy for maybe 10 percent of likely damage in the event of a kablooey is immensly less expensive.

      You want to talk about Pro or anti Nuclear power, there are plenty of places to do it. In a subsidy subthread, it has as much place, and as predictable an outcome as deciding to bring in certain politicians or the other deriling discussion side trips. So you betchya, I shut off when we go there, this response is as close as I''ll get to entertaining your notion. Ciao.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The limitation on liabilities isn't even "money that you don't have to pay." It's money that some groups (like Energy Fair) *wish* you had to pay. Otherwise, the maximum liability would be capped at the assets of the company anyway.

      I mean I guess you consider that a subsidy, so actually everybody is being subsidized due to bankruptcy laws. That doesn't seem like a useful definition. It's worthless in fact.

    9. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The limitation on liabilities isn't even "money that you don't have to pay." It's money that some groups (like Energy Fair) *wish* you had to pay. Otherwise, the maximum liability would be capped at the assets of the company anyway.

      I mean I guess you consider that a subsidy, so actually everybody is being subsidized due to bankruptcy laws. That doesn't seem like a useful definition. It's worthless in fact.

      Let us take say, the Chernobyl disaster, direct loss estimated at 15 billion dollars. Estimates over 30 years are 235 billion for th eUkraine, and 201 Billion for Belarus.

      So now, allow us to look at say, the Indian Nuclear Liability act. - The maximum liability for a nuclear accident for the operator is US 74 million. Now just between us chachalacas, Perhaps you could price out say a paltry 25 billion dollar liability policy. Is that magic money that rains down like manna form heaven? Or is it money that you do not have to pay out. I don't know about economics where you live, but if I do not have to spend a certain amount of money because the government allows me to purchase a insurance policty that is a tiny percentage of historical accidents in my industry, well then that is money I keep.

      I used India's government assuming most of the liability indemnity as a rather dramatic example. In the US, the Price-Anderson is at present set at 12.6 Billion. Still who exactly do you think is going to cover the excess?

      That really should not be hard to understand.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.

      Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!! That's the equivalent of your logic. It's nonsense.

      If there is money that you DO have to pay, and the government allows you to not pay it, then that could be considered a subsidy. But if it's money that you DO NOT have to pay, such as a $250 billion charge for Chernobyl, then it's nonsense to call that a subsidy. It was never owed or expected to be paid.

      I totally agree with you.. this should not be hard to understand.

    11. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.

      Are you having some issues this evening? What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that? Because in the disasters we've had so far, it is crediible that would be the amount of damage incurred. After that, the government picks up the tab. I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed. I would love to be paying the premiums I paid back in 1994, and if damages exceed that, the Government would write me out a check for the difference. But I can't. I could insure my place for the same amount as in 1994, but if it were wrecked, I'd get a check for a third of the present day replacement costs. And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit,. But I live on top of a hill, so am not eligible But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.

      Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!!

      And a hurricane could come through and wipe the town out. Or an earthquake. They might be considered Acts of God Your amusing homeless pyromaniac is a criminal act. Presumably the buildings that were destroyed had insurance that they had to pay for based on actual risk assessment tables, and the homeless guy is in prison. Your concept is a non sequitur.

      Tyying to get my mind around the apparent fact that you equate the nuclear power industry with a homeless guy. Then again, you are the logical one, eh?

      If you even think for one moment that that is what I have suggested, or if your amusing cliff drop version of the slippery slope is reasonable, you might reconsider your attacks on other people's logic.

      You want to have this discussion? Or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener!"

      I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars, what you spend is gone, and what you keep you keep or share with the stakeholders, and if you think that it isn't every bit the equal of handing over cash, well, we can't fix that can we. Ciao, me chachalaca!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that?

      Do you not understand numbers or something? You don't know the difference between X and 10X and 20X?

      I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed.

      No you don't. Once you own your home, you don't have to have homeowner's insurance at all. It's only your mortgage agreement with a bank that requires you to. Oh hey you learned something new!

      A better example would be car insurance since it's legally required in order to drive on public roads. But hey look what do you know, car insurance does not require you to cover a worst case scenario! In my state it's $30k for bodily injury. Now can you use a few brain cells and come up with a situation where $30k wouldn't cover the medical fees for a car accident? Hm? On the other hand you probably ARE the kind of idiot who treats that lack of required unlimited insurance as a driving subsidy.

      And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit

      You're really not understanding the issue are you? Flood insurance protects the person who holds the policy. If your house floods, you get a new house. If you don't have flood insurance, you don't get a new house. The end.

      Now what happens if there's a nuclear disaster? The insurance isn't to protect the company's assets, it's to protect the public. Flood insurance is a terrible analogy.

      But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.

      Hey well since hypothetical money is real to you, guess what? You're a millionaire! Because the government *could* have a 90% tax rate! And it *could* assess a 100% asset tax every year. And it *could* require everybody to have a $10 million umbrella insurance policy just in case. And it *could* reverse the tax benefit of dependents so you pay $5 million for each child you have.

      Wow! You have like literally millions of dollars of hypothetical money lying around! So that means you have millions of real dollars lying around right?

      I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars

      Buddy, please explain it, because I really don't understand. Why don't you have $500 million in the bank, since the government could assess various fees totaling $500 million against you? You didn't have to pay that, so it should be just lying around unused right?

      Explain, I'm soooo confused! Or I would be if I was a fucking idiot like you and thought hypothetical dollars were real.

    13. Re: Dunno if by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Buddy, please explain it, because I really don't understand. Why don't you have $500 million in the bank, since the government could assess various fees totaling $500 million against you? You didn't have to pay that, so it should be just lying around unused right?

      Explain, I'm soooo confused! Or I would be if I was a fucking idiot like you and thought hypothetical dollars were real.

      You are correct, you do not understand it. There is apparently nothing I can do about that, since I explained it to you several times already. Contact an accountant for further elucidation. Inability to get you to accept the truth isn't my problem, and I've been called a fucking idiot by more than one person who has turned out to be really badly wrong. Good day sir, how about a profanity laced reply so that you can call yourself the winner of the internet. Calling people "fucking idiots" really does show the deep level of your knowledge, and always wins the argument in altworld. Looking forward to more of your insight ridden profanity which I'll promptly ignore. Ciao my chachalaca!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re: Dunno if by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Feeling superior are we? Yes I called you a fucking idiot because nothing gets through to you. I love how you ignored everything I said because you were so distracted and offended by that, whereas you expect people to tolerate your own arrogance and smugness.

      You can't explain it because you're wrong. That's it. In the world of hypothetical money, the government could charge you $1 million for something, anything. It's hypothetical. Yet they didn't. In your world that must be a subsidy.

      If not, explain how it's not.

      Pro-tip: you can't, because this analogy is quite good... the LACK of a legal requirement to pay something, either insurance for nuclear damage, or something else

      It would be different if you WERE required to pay something but got a special dispensation not to. That's not hypothetical money because you can point to some people having to pay it and others not paying it.

      You haven't addressed a single point I've made, but you feel superior because dumb shit like "I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars" is more polite in your world than "fucking idiot." Fucking idiot.

  4. Solar Freaking roofways! by Z80a · · Score: 1

    At least they're not planning to drive cars over those solar cells.

    1. Re:Solar Freaking roofways! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can make viable solar powered cars, there's a semi-regular race across Australia. 100kph is quite possible over sustained distances.

      https://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/

      Problem is, not very comfortable cars. No A/C, the ride is horrible (very narrow, very hard wheels) and there's only room for the driver in most of them.

      I think there's a class for more conventional solar powered cars, a lot slower but still > 1kph.

      However, where the race happens in Australia is mostly sunny.

    2. Re:Solar Freaking roofways! by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about solar panels on top of cars, i'm talking about cars on top of solar panels.
      The solar freaking highways.

  5. Re:fuck this by sims+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a problem why? Would you rather someone build a coal plant next to your house to supply the power instead?

    The electricity has to come from somewhere.

    Lowering air pollution benefits all.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  6. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Solar isn't baseload. They'd need some sort of crazy energy storage device.

    Duh. FTS: "Powerpacks will store any excess energy generated by the vast solar installation."

    The real question is where on earth they're going to find such a number of "powerpacks". I mean, can you imagine the size of the factory you'd need just to make the batteries to support this, and how would they ever power such a place?!!!!

  7. Re:fuck this by youngone · · Score: 5, Informative
    AC is definitely a troll. Oil and coal get huge subsidies. We've been over it on slashdot before.

    https://www.theguardian.com/en...

  8. Re:fuck this by haruchai · · Score: 5, Informative

    You still think a "coal plant" belches out black soot and smoke don't you?

    Educate yourself. Fossil plants use baghouses, dry sorbent injection, activated carbon, flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, among other technologies to clean up emissions. Mostly what you see today is water vapor.

    Yeah no one wants a power plant near them, but happy to use the electricity it generates. Ignorance is bliss.

    The only reason that coal plants use *any* of those technologies is because they were FORCED. And they spent DECADES resisting any attempts to curb their pollution. Yes, they're cleaner than ever but they were fucking nasty for the better part of my life.
    If Trump disbands the EPA, they'll happily go back to spewing their shite directly into your air & water with a hearty fuck-u-and-blow-me

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  9. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by haruchai · · Score: 1

    The original Gigafactory plan mentioned wind turbines as well but I'm sure they'll have a sizable grid connection.
    They'd be crazy not to.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  10. Re:fuck this by dprimary · · Score: 3

    Coal is dead, forget about it. Coal fuel costs more then you can make off the electricity you sell. Power prices keep heading down. Nobody is building coal plants anymore,

  11. Re:Now if they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 12 hp hits car in peak sun. 10% PV efficiency, and you are left with 1.2 hp. 1.2 hp would get you 30 mph on the flat.

  12. Solar panels in Nevada? by Zemran · · Score: 3, Informative

    Solar panels in Nevada? A Heliostat would work as well and would not require such an unecological production process. Solar panels may be better than old tech power production but the chemicals used are pollutants. They are not as green as claimed but heliostat towers are far more green and in a area like Nevada. Why does a country like Morocco end up leading the world? https://www.revolvesolar.com/w...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:Solar panels in Nevada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar panels in Nevada? A Heliostat would work as well and would not require such an unecological production process.

      Except Telsa owns a solar panel manufacturing plant, not a Heliostat manufacturing plant.

    2. Re:Solar panels in Nevada? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Heliostats don't scale down very well. It takes a crew of people to keep them running. Solar installations are set it and forget it and the depreciation very easy to calculate.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re: Solar panels in Nevada? by avandesande · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A heliostat would take up 2/3 of the gigafactory site and could be used for nothing else. Solar panels are easy to sprinkle around building etc without making the property useless.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Solar panels in Nevada? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      As mentioned by others, Tesla produces and sells the panels themselves, they don't build heliostats.
      In addition, they have a lot of rooftop real-estate at their factory and presumably it's a lot easier and cheaper to cover the roof with panels than construct a heliostat on a neighboring piece of land.

      I'm sure that at a certain point one monolithic power plant has advantages in efficiency and other economies of scale, but I don't think Tesla+SolarCity is looking to become a traditional power utility company, and there are advantages to the approach of small nodes of power generation and storage that might be connected in a mesh-network to balance loads, cover local failures, and don't require running long distance power lines to isolated locations.

    5. Re:Solar panels in Nevada? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      At 70 MW, it's not really a small scale installation anymore. You can afford to have 3 people to watch the thing in shifts. The AC / DC converters and night-time storage are all expensive. And panels will need replacing eventually.

      I think they chose PV solar because they own Solar City, and not for any other reason.

    6. Re: Solar panels in Nevada? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      So⦠You admit they are not doing it because they want to be green, but for some other purpose.

      Because your false dichotomy makes motherfucking sense, and it is impossible in your b&w world that a company could be trying to go green even if while having to use what it has at its disposal.

      Whatever it is that you are smoking, stop.

    7. Re:Solar panels in Nevada? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I suppose huge arrays of mirrors, miles of pipe, gas turbines, pumps and generators grow on trees and are carbon neutral ;-)

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  13. Re:fuck this by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

    I happen to have not only one, but two natural gas power plants within a mile or so (along with a refinery). While I know enough to not be too worried about what comes off the cooling towers, stand around the fence for a while... ask yourself why you now have a bloody nose, itchy eyes, and shortness of breath. The joy of NOx.

    Yes, things get diluted pretty quickly as long as wind is blowing things away from you, but I am only talking about short-term effects. The level of adult-onset asthma in the community is also very high. Treatment is only done to get levels down to be reliably at the regulatory threshold... otherwise you are wasting money.

    Bottom line is we are better off with nothing going up the smokestack.

  14. Re:Whatever by Bandraginus · · Score: 2

    From SolarCity's 2015 impact report it seems that 70MW of installed power produced 28,630 metric tons of CO2. It's 2017 (which should have yielded further emissions savings over 2015), plus installing bulk might yield yet further savings.

    But I'm a firm believe in the energy trap, so I think that's 28,630 tons of CO2 well invested.

  15. Re:OMG by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    The plant will be powered by Elon's love. Also, you have to wind it.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  16. Re:fuck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they'll remove the mercury warnings for seafood, which is also caused by burning coal.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tunas-declining-mercury-contamination-linked-to-u-s-shift-away-from-coal/

  17. Re:Now if they... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Actually 91.75 km/h. (I think, but not sure, that includes night time.) But these vehicles aren't terribly practical, and wherever you live probably gets less sun than the Australian outback.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  18. Re:fuck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Coal is dead, forget about it. Coal fuel costs more then you can make off the electricity you sell. Power prices keep heading down. Nobody is building coal plants anymore,

    Trump's EPA and government might be able to cut regulations enough to make coal competitive. Basically if he just says to hell with the environment, then it might make financial sense. It likely wouldn't cause enough damage in four years to prevent his reelection, or even if it did, he could probably get enough people to lie and say it didn't to get around it.

    Personally, I think he is just a con man that will say anything to win, and try to do just enough to keep the con going. If screwing over the environment benefits the Donald, then the environment will be told to shove it.

    My own bet would be for them to try to work out some plan which is mostly theater where trump and the republicans do their best for those hard working coal workers, while all the time trying to plan it out so the bill or whatever gets defeated. In other words, I think they may learn from obamacare. They got so much mileage out of that hate, and they didn't have to do a damn thing to actually improve it. In fact, some of them might wish there was a way to keep it just so they could keep complaining about it. So, to summarize, pretending to give a crap about coal, while in reality never quite getting it done, is likely their best strategy. That way they can keep going back to that well.

  19. Re:Now if they... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Correction: Driving time is 8am to 5pm, with a little leeway for finding a good place to stop for the night. It does not include night driving.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  20. Damn subsidies by kwerle · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[13]

    Keep funding the middle east.

  21. Re:Now if they... by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    Or maybe run the climate control a bit to keep the inside from being a furnace when you return to the car.

  22. Re:fuck this by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

    WRONG!
    Medupi power station
    Kusile power station
    Both still under construction (and running behind schedule and over budget)

    I grew up next to this monstrosity
    Hendrina power station
    When you woke up in the morning you had to wash the coal dust off the car, it would eat the galvanizing off fences because of the high sulpher content.
    Sure it's a bit better now, but not by much. ZA has a fvckton of coal, it will be burning it for some time.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  23. Re:Now if they... by Sique · · Score: 1

    Really? You want one of those cars?

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  24. Re:fuck this by Sique · · Score: 2

    But still, they are subsidies. You get subsidies to build solar. You get subsidies to build a coal plant. So if we are talking about a free market, you have to remove the subsidies for building the coal plant, because construction cost is part of the cost of a coal plant.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  25. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Baseload is one of those talking points which get repeated and repeated again, but no one actually enumerates the baseload. How much energy do we have to provide constantly at a minimum?

    The Dutch Railways are now completely wind powered as of Jan 1 2017. Apparently they don't need baseload power plants.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  26. Re:Now if they... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    You can have the outback sun, the luddites running the country definitely don't want it.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  27. Re:fuck this by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >Sure it's a bit better now, but not by much. ZA has a fvckton of coal, it will be burning it for some time.

    Don't be so sure of this. Coal comes in different varieties and a coal plant must be designed for a specific variety. And we have a problem here in ZA. Until around 2010 the coal we used in our plants had little export value, while the coal Europe used was exactly the coal we didn't need. So Eskom could get very low rates on the coal they needed - because the mines could make lovely profits selling the rest to Europe.

    Since 2010 the European market has been shrinking fast, it's not a viable export market anymore. China on the other hand is growing rapidly and is now our major coal export market. Only problem: China's plants use the same coal variety we do. So suddenly the mines are very unhappy about selling coal at R5 a tonne to Eskom when they SAME coal can get R50 a tonne from China.
    Part of why Eskom helped the Guptas to buy that coal mine is because the mine was about to go bankrupt. The owners are in a long-term cheap coal supply with Eskom and had decided they would rather close that mine and focus on the others (from where they could export the coal to China) than keep operating the one they had to sell so cheaply it was making a loss.

    Helping the Guptas buy it was partly motivated by the risk that if the mine closes Eskom would face a critical shortage. That nobody was willing to buy it without kickbacks and help tells you a lot.

    Either way, none of this is relevant to American coal-miners, we've never imported coal from them and we never will - since their coal won't work in our power plants and, like you said, we have plenty of coal anyway.

    It's definitely in ZA's best interest to move away from coal - not least because the economics around mining and burning have changed and it's now a lot harder to do it economically. The answer isn't the ridiculous nuclear plan either.

    The problem with nuclear is that it is extremely expensive and takes a long time to get online. A minimum of a decade - and nuclear plants are notorious for going extremely over budget and over time - look how late Kusile and Medupi already are, there's no practical way a nuclear project will produce a single KW/H of power in South Africa in under 30 years. We can't afford to wait that long.

    Our answer must be solar - we can bring the same power as the nuclear project online with solar in 2 years for 10% of the capital costs. And the cost of the power is far cheaper as well. Even with storage factored in it remains the cheapest power source of all, and we are particularly suited to it what with being such a high sunshine country.
    The best studies right now pegs the total cost per kw/h of coal at about R120, nuclear is at about R1.05. Wind is around 85c - solar is 55c.
    Less than half the cost of coal.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  28. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    There are some 50MW batteries deployed in Japan and Hawaii. They are sodium sulphur so a bit lower density than lithium, but they only take up the space of a small substation.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Not gonna work by RghtHndSd · · Score: 3, Funny

    They would need a massive battery to store all that power to make this work. They clearly haven't thought it through.

    1. Re:Not gonna work by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      They would need a massive battery to store all that power to make this work. They clearly haven't thought it through.

      See, factories and cars are exactly the same, so they have thought it through very well... and are definitely not doing it to create a completely inefficient system with a PF of 0.21 just to make the future prospective buyers of their products want them more. Hey, there are solar panels there! That means they work! /sarcasm :)

  30. Re:Now if they... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Although it's plenty to run the stereo indefinitely.

    And the blower motor, and the after run coolant pump. And perhaps even the heat pump, a little bit, but that would take substantial panel area. Running the blower motor only takes a sunroof-sized area.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re:fuck this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Educate yourself. Fossil plants use baghouses, dry sorbent injection, activated carbon, flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, among other technologies to clean up emissions. Mostly what you see today is water vapor.

    We can find industrial emitters releasing illegal levels of pollutants as rapidly as we can pay people to sample them.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Useful information for SpaceX by vittal · · Score: 1

    Closed-loop water usage; large scale solar; on-site recycling. This sounds like an R&D project for SpaceX. No doubt much of the information gained by building and running this will feed back into other Musk projects.

    Of course, if they want to practice this in a place without an atmosphere, they could always build Gigafactory 2 in Boring, Oregon - or even it's twin town of Dull, Scotland ;-)

    1. Re:Useful information for SpaceX by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that's the first thought that came to my mind too! All the infrastructure like that will be required for his Mars colony, this is an excellent way to do industrial-scale R&D. I guarantee that is a huge part of why he's doing this; at least in the long-term. Having the engineering experience of building huge solar arrays, multi-phase water recycling, large high-density battery arrays...it's all tech needed for an off-world colony. Also consider the pure electric vehicles; no need to import "gasoline" to Mars.

  33. Re:fuck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget cheap leasing on federal land for coal oil and gas. Federal and state mineral/land leases have never been market rate.

  34. Re:Now if they... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    If you had a car with no battery, I would agree with you. If you had enough battery to store sufficient juice for your typical drive then the solar roof could simply be charging that battery during the day when you are not driving. Seems like that would be plenty, especially for someone who uses the car infrequently (so long as it is parked in a sunny spot).

  35. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by stdarg · · Score: 1

    That usually means they have installed (or contracted) a certain amount of wind power that equals out to the amount of electricity they use, not that they have severed their connection to the baseline generation provided by the grid.

  36. Re:fuck this by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    Agreed. However, that won't cut it. Population continues to increase. Unfortunately, because of copyright I can't write a book about the inconvenient truth of population reduction being the only "long-term, sustainable" solution. Of course, Humans can't accept that so I'm just making noise. ;)

  37. Re: coal plants still cause health damage by fropenn · · Score: 1

    Using estimates from published research, the little coal-fired plant at the local university here in town, even though they use "clean" coal methods, still produces about $12 million in negative health impacts on people that live in the community. This primarily comes from fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrious oxide, and doesn't even include the cost of disposal of the coal ash. Major coal plants have a much larger impact on human health, particularly if they are located near population centers.

  38. So, no night shifts? by gachunt · · Score: 1

    Guess that will be good for employee work/life balance.

  39. Re:fuck this by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    You first. Lead by example.

    I am. I don't have kids and I refuse to do so. There, I'm leading by example. See? It doesn't have the slightest influence because it's unacceptable to deal with the reality of over-population leading us where we *say* we don't want to go.

  40. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    Baseload is one of those talking points which get repeated and repeated again, but no one actually enumerates the baseload. How much energy do we have to provide constantly at a minimum?

    The Dutch Railways are now completely wind powered as of Jan 1 2017. Apparently they don't need baseload power plants.

    I've yet to read about PF correction in a non-grid electrical setup. Not to mention 3 phase. I'd love to see that stuff.

  41. Re:But what if the sun isn't shining? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    Thank you for explaining my joke. Note to self: the word 'baseload' really triggers people.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  42. Re:fuck this by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Where is the evidence for that? I just looked up what a baghouse was, and according to Wikipedia they, "came into widespread use in the late 1970s after the invention of high-temperature fabrics (for use in the filter media) capable of withstanding temperatures over 350 F." So maybe the reason coal plants were not cleaner is because the technology was not there yet.

    Baghouse collection isn't the only method. Electrostatic precipitator, for example, have been around for over a century.
    Also it should be possible to use heat exchangers to control the temperature of the smoke destined for the baghouse so as to keep it within the correct operating temp range - and pump at least some of the captured heat back to the boilers or furnaces to improve overall efficiency.
    Of course, there are challenges with any approach but not insurmountable and were always worth doing giving the drastic impact of power plant pollution on air quality.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body