Tesla Gigafactory Pumps Out 1,500 Model 3 Batteries, Tesla Model S 75 Discontinued says CleanTechnica

From CleanTechnica

July 24th, 2017 by Steve Hanley 

This story about Tesla and the Gigafactory was first published on Gas2.

If it seems like there is more news about Tesla than any other car company, that’s only because it’s true. More new stuff swirls around the Land of Tesla every day than at most companies in a month — or a year! As the Model 3 nears its first public showing later this week, Tesla is making one move designed to further separate the Model S from its lower priced sibling. It is discontinuing the entry level Model S 75 with rear-wheel drive.Tesla Model S. If it seems like there is more news about Tesla than any other car company, that’s only because it’s true. More new stuff swirls around the Land of Tesla every day than at most companies in a month — or a year! As the Model 3 nears its first public showing later this week, Tesla is making one move designed to further separate the Model S from its lower priced sibling. It is discontinuing the entry level Model S 75 with rear-wheel drive.

Tesla Model S

You can still order the car for September delivery, but you better act fast. Once the factory pulls the plug on that car, every vehicle in the Model S and Model X lineup will be built with dual motors. The decision means the base price of a Model S will climb to $74,500 — more than double the base price of the Model 3. Only rear-wheel-drive versions of Tesla’s new midsize car will be available at first, as the factory seeks to limit the number of options available to make production as simple and efficient as possible.

Genscape is a company that tracks hundreds of industrial enterprises using drone videos and other proprietary tracking techniques. You can view footage of the progress at the Tesla Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada, in its new video. The place is starting to look really huge, and construction continues at a rapid pace. It reports that 1,500 Model 3 battery packs have left the Gigafactory and are on their way to Fremont, California, where they will be installed in Model 3 sedans.

For the entire story on CleanTechnica

Advertisements

Tips for Recycling Your Construction Waste

In a healthy economy, construction waste makes up one-third of all refuse. At this scale, even small efforts towards recycling and reusing leftover building material or debris make a big change. Construction waste consists mostly of concrete, wood, drywall, shingles, asphalt and metal, but also cardboard and plastic from packaging. Although considered waste, many of these materials are valuable commodities that can be recycled to make new products or used in many ways. In short, recycling benefits both a construction business and the environment.
 Description	 English: A bag of cut polyurethane blocks that have been cut up and can no longer be used. As can be clearly seen, this kind of insulator is wasteful, and as such, extra expensive. A more suitable alternative could be compressed straw as insulator, or other alternatives. Date	17 June 2008 Source	 Own work Author	 KVDP
Planning before building

As a large part of building waste can be recycled or reused, its removal needs preparation from the very beginning. Along with other construction plans, make one for waste collection, disposal and recycling. Mark a place on the site where workers can dispose of debris and material leftovers. This site mustn’t obstruct the work, nor cause any safety hazards for workers.

Discarded materials and their uses

Each discarded material has its recyclable potential. Bricks, for example, can be reused or crushed to make road bases. Undamaged windows and doors can be refitted to other homes, as well as plumbing fixtures, like tubs. Lumber and wood products can be reused for further construction or converted to mulch or biomass fuel. Metals can be smelted and converted into other products. Vegetation and trees can be replanted if possible or used for biomass fuel.

Building it back

Probably the best and the safest method is to integrate construction waste into a new building or another building site, where applicable. For example, if you are remodelling, you don’t have to demolish the walls, but rather reconfigure or move them. Lumber leftovers from wood-framed structures can be used for fire blocking or as spacers. In addition, use building materials supplied in standard measurements whenever possible. The less you have to cut or remove, the less waste you will create. What is more, standard dimensions let you reuse any leftover materials more easily.  

Deconstruction instead demolition

Some laws propose or encourage removing reusable items without damage so they can be reused in housing projects. A contractor who is paying for the removal can even be granted certain tax benefits. If no such project exists, the contractor can organize a front yard sale of items like radiators, grates, piping, fixtures and fittings that are in acceptable condition.

Sorting the waste

In order to process them easier later on, different types of construction waste need to be deposited in separate piles. Concrete, asphalt, bricks and shingles can go together. Window frames and doors can go on the pile for wood and timber leftovers. Plastic, cables and nylons will go in the third, and so on. Separating and sorting materials from the very beginning makes them easier to remove and also lowers the disposal costs.

Local is always cheaper

You can avoid costly transport expenses by browsing local businesses that specialize in construction waste removal. Inquire what each of them offers and select the one that has an efficient recycling programme. To save time and money, ask them to provide containers on the site so you can dispose of materials on the go. Alternatively, you can dispose of waste every time you go out to fetch new building materials. Selecting a reputable waste recycling centre can save you a lot of headaches.  

Safety measures

When sorting and separating items in containers, make sure no unwanted materials get inside. If any amount of rubbish is placed with the sorted waste, the entire load is considered unacceptable for recycling. Make sure the bins and containers have clear labels for different types of waste.

There are many ways to reuse construction waste, so make sure it doesn’t simply end on the landfill. By recycling materials or integrating them into further construction, you won’t only reduce the amount of waste produced by the site, but also make savings through different municipal projects or by selling reusable items.

Renewables on the grid: Putting the negative-price myth to bed

Three years ago, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) rebutted arguments that occurrences of negative prices at nuclear plants in Illinois were frequently caused by wind energy. That “compelling” data led FERC Commissioner John Norris, who had previously discussed his concerns about negative prices, to affirm that “the focus on negative prices is a distraction.”
More recently, we have documented that many instances of negative prices are caused by conventional power plants.

AWEA has now made our prior analysis far more comprehensive by examining full-year 2016 price data for all retiring power plants in the main wholesale electricity markets that have a large amount of wind generation: PJM, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT.

AWEA has now made our prior analysis far more comprehensive by examining full-year 2016 price data for all retiring power plants in the main wholesale electricity markets that have a large amount of wind generation: PJM, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT.
The results, which we are releasing today for the first time, confirm that any instances of renewable policies like the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and state renewable standard credits being factored into market prices have a trivial impact on retiring power plants.

Across more than 1.8 million data points, which cover all 2016 pricing intervals in the day-ahead electricity market for all retiring power plants in those regions, only 55 instances of negative prices were found that could have been set by a wind project receiving the PTC. The analysis includes market price data for all power plants that have retired since 2012 or have announced plans to retire.

Our analysis focused on the day-ahead electricity market (the results bolded below), as that is where nuclear and coal generators sell most if not all of their generation. However, the results show that wind plants almost never set prices for an additional 2.4 million data points in the real-time electricity market as well. For more background on electricity markets and how prices are set, see the last section of this post.

In PJM and MISO, which account for a large share of all power plants in wholesale markets that are retiring nationwide, only 0.003 percent of day-ahead market prices at retiring power plants were in a range that could be set by a wind project receiving the PTC, as shown on the left side of the table. Occurrences of negative prices that could be wind-related were even less frequent in SPP, at 0.0017 percent of day-ahead market price intervals. Those occurrences were slightly more common at retiring plants in ERCOT, at 0.06 percent of price intervals, but it should be noted that there is only one retiring coal power plant in ERCOT.

To underscore the trivial impact of the PTC in setting market prices, the right side of the table shows how prices would change if wind projects receiving the PTC no longer received the credit. In PJM and MISO, conservatively assuming that all negative prices in that range were set by wind projects receiving the PTC, Day-Ahead Market prices at retiring power plants would increase by an average of $0.0007, or 1/13th of a penny per megawatt hour (MWh), if operating wind projects no longer received the PTC. Retiring power plants in SPP saw an even smaller impact at 1/25th of a penny, while the one retiring coal power plant in ERCOT saw an impact of around one penny per MWh.

It is important to clarify that the PTC does directly reduce consumer electricity costs outside of the electricity market. The PTC and other incentives allow wind projects to offer lower long-term contract prices to customers and the utilities who serve them, which translates into lower electric bills for consumers on a 1:1 basis.

However, those contract payments are outside of the wholesale electricity market, so they are not directly factored into the wholesale electricity market prices received by other generators.

The facts about energy incentives

In reality, the wind PTC has been a remarkable success in driving the American innovation and efficiency that have driven a two-third reduction in the cost of wind energy since 2009. The more than 102,500 Americans working in the wind industry today are creating a new industry with a bright future, bringing tens of billions of dollars in investment to rural areas and tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs to America. Production-based incentives like the PTC have driven efficiency increases that make U.S. wind projects some of the most productive in the world.

In reality, the wind PTC has been a remarkable success in driving the American innovation and efficiency that have driven a two-third reduction in the cost of wind energy since 2009. The more than 102,500 Americans working in the wind industry today are creating a new industry with a bright future, bringing tens of billions of dollars in investment to rural areas and tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs to America. Production-based incentives like the PTC have driven efficiency increases that make U.S. wind projects some of the most productive in the world.    Regardless, Congress voted in December 2015 to phase down the wind PTC, and we are now in year three of that five-year phasedown period. Despite the recent focus on incentives for renewables, cumulatively wind energy has received only 3 percent of federal energy incentives, versus 86 percent for fossil and nuclear sources, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute and other experts. Given that the wind industry’s “tax reform” is already in place with the PTC phasedown legislation, we would welcome a comprehensive look at all forms of subsidies for all electricity sources.  Market dynamics are driving retirements  Market dynamics are benefiting consumers by driving retirement of older, less efficient resources in favor of more efficient resources. A wide range of experts agree that the primary factors driving power plant retirements and economic challenges for generators of all types are cheap natural gas and flat electricity demand.  The following map, compiled from Department of Energy data, shows that most retiring coal and nuclear plants are in regions that have little to no renewable generation, confirming that renewable energy or pro-renewable policies cannot be the primary factor driving those retirements.    Rather, the primary factor driving power plant retirements appears to be low-cost shale gas production undercutting relatively high-cost Appalachian and Illinois Basin coal in the Eastern U.S., as shown below. In the regions shaded red in the map, the fuel cost of producing electricity from natural gas is significantly
Regardless, Congress voted in December 2015 to phase down the wind PTC, and we are now in year three of that five-year phasedown period. Despite the recent focus on incentives for renewables, cumulatively wind energy has received only 3 percent of federal energy incentives, versus 86 percent for fossil and nuclear sources, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute and other experts. Given that the wind industry’s “tax reform” is already in place with the PTC phasedown legislation, we would welcome a comprehensive look at all forms of subsidies for all electricity sources.

Market dynamics are driving retirements

Market dynamics are benefiting consumers by driving retirement of older, less efficient resources in favor of more efficient resources. A wide range of experts agree that the primary factors driving power plant retirements and economic challenges for generators of all types are cheap natural gas and flat electricity demand.

The following map, compiled from Department of Energy data, shows that most retiring coal and nuclear plants are in regions that have little to no renewable generation, confirming that renewable energy or pro-renewable policies cannot be the primary factor driving those retirements.

Rather, the primary factor driving power plant retirements appears to be low-cost shale gas production undercutting relatively high-cost Appalachian and Illinois Basin coal in the Eastern U.S., as shown below. In the regions shaded red in the map, the fuel cost of producing electricity from natural gas is significantly lower than the fuel cost of coal power plants, explaining why utilities in those regions are moving from coal to natural gas generation.

For the entire story on the AWEA blog, MICHAEL GOGGIN, JULY 18, 2017

Experts Share their Secrets to an Eco Friendly Lifestyle

Whether it’s protesting the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement or vowing to transition to electric-only vehicles within the next decade, many businesses have been focusing on how they can do their part in saving our planet.

Although many Americans want to make the personal transition towards green living themselves, most don’t even know where to begin! That’s why the team at EmPower Solar decided to speak with a panel of eco-friendly experts on their personal practices. You can see their best advice here.

Whether it’s protesting the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement or vowing to transition to electric-only vehicles within the next decade, many businesses have been focusing on how they can do their part in saving our planet.  Although many Americans want to make the personal transition towards green living themselves, most don’t even know where to begin!

Elon Musk Tells Governors About Solar Power plus US Gigafactories

Speaking to the National Governors Association summer conference in Rhode Island last week, Elon Musk gave the state solons their money’s worth. He told them that it would be possible to supply every electron needed to keep America humming by covering just 100 square miles with solar panels.

“If you wanted to power the entire U.S. with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah. You only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States.”

July 19th, 2017 by Steve Hanley   Speaking to the National Governors Association summer conference in Rhode Island last week, Elon Musk gave the state solons their money’s worth. He told them that it would be possible to supply every electron needed to keep America humming by covering just 100 square miles with solar panels.  “If you wanted to power the entire U.S. with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah. You only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States.”
Of course, some grid storage capability would need to be included. Musk has an answer for that, too. “The batteries you need to store the energy, to make sure you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square mile. That’s it.”
For the entire story from CleanTechnica on July 19th, 2017 by Steve Hanley