Estevan considered for solar power

[oneoff]

Accidental repeat Sorry

[oneoff]

HAD TO REPEAT MYSELF IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET AN ANSWER

Very much need clarification if the nameplate 10 Mw "solar plant" means maximum output is only for time periods under near ideal conditions;

or if on an average 24 hour basis it will supply 10 Mw "on average, continuously throughout a year ".

Surely it can be agreed that there is no way that output occurs in darkness; and only partial solar PV ratings can be accomplished throughout most of an average day.

Convince me.

[oneoff]

Points nor acknowledged so might as well delete

[Hamloc]

Again good information Oneoff. One small typo it was 107 hours that Lisbon ran on renewables not days, not trying to be a smartass but quite a difference. I think your quite right about finding out what the 10 MW refers to. One example on a very small scale, one retailer advertised a 7950 watt grid tie in producing 795 kwh on average per month. This retailer was from Calgary area so I assume this works in theory in our neck of the woods. So it would be interesting to know what the time frame for the production of 10MW is. My other thought is if solar is such a fantastic and profitable way to produce electricity why isn't a high percentage of our power already produced this way? Why does it require government subsidy?

[oneoff]

Thanks And with agriville's updates that can be easily corrected and hidden in future. As a point of information; how does a person copy and put a "border" around someone else's quote that you wish to address?

[burnt]

Thanks And with agriville's updates that can be easily corrected and hidden in future. As a point of information; how does a person copy and put a "border" around someone else's quote that you wish to address?

Click on the curved arrow at the bottom of the post you want to quote---------------------------------------------------------------------->

[tweety]

So at 4.3 Estevan is pretty good

So at 4.3 Estevan is pretty good


So you sure can't argue that it takes up less land for a solar panel farm in Estevan where you should have an OPTIMUM 40.2 degree tilt compared to Phoenix at 30.9 (for instance). And of course thats also why Estevan has comparatively better "Radiation Incident on properly optimum tilted panels" figures than Stockholm which should have all solar panels point "down" at a 48.9 degree angle

It would take more land, you have to get out of the shadow out of the one ahead of it.

I understand what you are saying oneoff, but you haven't explained why not just stick them in the sun. Lets use some of that carbon tax and learn a few things.

China, not much different in sun power vs Estevan put up 17GW worth last year alone and has 400 solar companies. As long as non renewable is basically free, the attitude of screw it why bother will be alive and well as demonstrated here over and over.

[oneoff]

If it comes out that Sask Power 10 Mw solar projects deliver only about 2.5 Mw on a sustained year round continual basis....then there should be the reddest faces in the world in Sask.

Because as I understand it; every solar panel sold to the public is rated in watts corresponding to its surface area size. And if exposed to suitable sunlight (or even similar wavelengths from man made sources) 24 hours a day then you could indeed produce say 10 Mw continuously (ie some 240,000 Kwh of electricity per day .

Now Sask power is probably only going to get equivalent of 4 to 6 hours a day of output; and if the panels are rated for 10 Mw outout; there will be maybe 1/6 to 1/4 of 240,000 Kwh per day produced.

On Monday I will try to ask Sask Power if that 10Mw they are talking about varies from zero output the majority of the time...up to full nameplate rating when the sun and weather are providing max radiation incidence on fixed tilted panels.


You can't expect something to perform well beyond its designed capability. Is Sask Power using the solar panel industries advertised Max output ratings for panels or are they expecting total 10 Mw output capacity at least averaged over a yearly period.

[oneoff]

You will remember tweet that a contributor claimed that not one additional square foot would be required to site solar panel farms. (remember roofs, parking lots and highway corridors etc. etc and only 7% (as I recall.. see I do read what others say) of those already utilized footprints could do double duty as solar sites.

Now the truth is that quarter sections are required with sole use of accomdating PV panels and additional infrastructure and access etc.

They won't get spread over neighborhoods even if just for liability reasons; security issues, potential theft of electrical energy which is a big criminal offence; safety issues and the nightmare of entering numerous other peoples property. Some things appear to be good ideas until you do a bit of thinking.

And there isn't a surplus of land to waste that would be covered with fairly fragile equipment (at high currents if not also voltages) that doesn't lend itself to any addition complementary uses that come to my mind.

[chuckChuck]

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
USA Average Levilized cots of energy (LCOE) for plants coming on stream in 2022 in USA in 2015 $/Mwh. No subsidies included.

Coal with CCS - $139.5
Natural Gas Conventional Combined cycle - $58.1
Natural Gas Advanced Combined cycle -$57.2
Natural Gas CC with CCS -$84.8
Natural Gas Conventional Combustion Turbine - $110.8
Natural Gas Advanced Combustion Turbine - $94.7

Advanced Nuclear - $102.8
Geothermal -$45
Biomass -$96.1

Wind - $64.5
Wind Offshore - $158.1
Solar PV - $84.7
Solar Thermal -$235.9
Hydroelectric -$67.8

[chuckChuck]

Oneoff why are you desperately trying to criticize solar PV? Look at the numbers above! Solar PV is a way cheaper than coal with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and the same price as gas with CCS.

The LCOE numbers are a guide to the cost of generation options across the US coming on stream in 2022. Individual projects like Estevan will have their own numbers.

Sask power is no doubt trying to see how Solar PV will fit into the grid with a small project of 10mw.

Your opposition to this proposed project goes beyond reasonable. Why are you so opposed to solar pv when you don't even have the information or understanding to make an informed decision of whether it is a good investment?

Why not give Sask Power and Brad Wall the benefit of your doubt and see what the results are before you jump to conclusions?

[sumdumguy]

I am sure there have been several test projects already. It just seems like these test projects all encounter multiple over runs and the taxpayer foots the bill, but for sure nothing ventured-nothing gained?