Estevan considered for solar power

[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?

[bucket]

Solar ....good idea but what is the back up?


As the dumdums slowly and foolishly eliminate coal power to the base power required.....at what point does industry leave....

I criticize evraz but give them an unreliable source of power to melt steel and continue recycling here ....they will move to a more generous jurisdiction. ....it's always been their threat.....but being run by Russian businessmen that may be friends of Trump ....it may no longer be an idle threat....

And the cost of cleanup of the Regina plant would be more than leaving the existing so called dirty coal plants running and paying a carbon tax.

Not sure WTF is wrong with these so called environmentally friendly people....Saskatchewan's power is generated fairly clean already powering industries that recycle ....everything from steel to used oil.....how much more do you want when you consider how far we have come from just parking equipment in fence rows and throwing the used oil under it?

And what does it cost to have more green?


Clean tractors.....recycled oil, steel and plastics.....fewer hours on larger equipment ....


I don't think anyone has done the math on what has been achieved using common sense and what it's going to cost for these high priced iniatitives. .....for very little ROI.....

[checking]

cc.

Keeps referring to a cost comparison that shows large scale solar projects (without subsidies) are more affordable than coal fired plants.

Yet, he is not prepared to start a small scale solar project on his farm without forever gathering information to see if it will really work. He has to rely on the outcome of a neighboring solar project, and then more questioning of the neighbour's results.

Could it really be that cc. has to wait until he can get a government subsidy? Or, is it just like his advice to us, too just relax, you will be able to drive your diesel trucks for a long time, with just relax, cc. will power his farm from a coal plant for a long time.

Come on cc., get off the pot and start offering those guided tours of your solar powered, non subsidized demonstration farm.

[oneoff]

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?

MAYBE 'Ill LEAVE THIS ONE POSTED...no answer direct answers to any questions ...MAYBE history will judge who had best grasp on possible outcomes.

Chuck its high time you started defending. When several people have asked if that 10 Mw demonstration PV can be counted to put out 10 Mw of power on at least a consistant basis; there is no direct response.

When someone asks why that project isn't put on the houses or roofs of the power plant or highways which you have claimed is what will happen...instead of buying quarter sections throughout the province...there is no reply.

When someone challenges you about there being other more valid than LCOE approaches when comparing apples to apples...there is not any acknowledgement even when it is in the same article you draw quotes from. Here is a definition of LCOE

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) calculator provides a simple calculator for both utility-scale and distributed generation (DG) renewable energy technologies that compares the combination of capital costs, operations and maintenance (O&M), performance, and fuel costs.

Everyone will see that no credit is given for base loads that will have to be backed up by other sources "for a long time yet". So pay to have mothballed or maybe just be forced to shut down relatively new coal units that certainly haven't reached their life expectancy. We should be glad we still have them and not have to apologize to anyone that frowns on dirty coal. Prematurely shutting down a coal plant affects a whole industry; the workers; the service industry and the province.
You know coal is used to make char and activated carbon for your water filters and dust masks and I doubt that can be replaced by wind and sun.

Quit pushing the cart before the horse. I am told that the calciner (rotary kiln at Bienfeit) ostensibly owned by Sask Power is being shut down (probably for good). Here are examples of what a calciner does


Some examples of calcining applications include:

The removal of water from alumina at temperatures ranging well above 2,000°F. Removing water from alumina makes it possible to manufacture catalysts.
The removal of water from kaolin, from which calcined kaolin can be used in the production of paper and other similar processes.
Volatiles can be removed from spent activated carbon, allowing the reactivated carbon to be recycled back to absorption columns with the gold mining industry.

You've got a damn lot to learn chuck. You misinterpret what is said; refuse to provide compelling evidence (from more than one angle) and really don't know a fraction of what other have probably forgotten.

Please stick your neck out and answer how much electrical power we can count on from the Sask Power 10Mw panels because I don't have the first clue if they are just buying the equivalent of 39215 solar panels each rated at 255 watt output.

If that is so then the electricity produced can not be and will be not be any where near 1/30 of the Shand unit(s I forget how many were constructed) I believe one generating unit was 300 Mw)and haven't heard of major problem that would reduce its 24 hour per day uptime. Solar for instance (by Sask Power statement) can be counted counted on to produce power only about 15% of each day.

Time to answer questions as frequently as you propose we jump on bandwagons that may not be nearly as functional as you first think.

I am not opposed to solar or wind; or cogeneration or coal or nuclear as long as it has its place and can't be replaced at this time.

My last question is why you and a majority of "feel good" people (for lack of better words) are so willing to rush to completely change that which is not yet ready.

This could ruin this country; and the comeback (if any) won't be made with the same people who are pushing these connected agendas. If President Trumps campaign promises mean anything; this will play out a lot differently (for Canada) than what the electorate expects from Canadian governments who now incorrectly believe they are in touch with the pulse of Canada future. We had better wait a few months to see how much of him is wind; and if he is for real and his plan works;
This province and more pointedly this country had better to be ready for the stus quo (of the day) being changed here in upcoming "nearby" elections.

If proposals can stand scutiny; then they better be taken back to the drawing board.

[burnt]

cc.

Keeps referring to a cost comparison that shows large scale solar projects (without subsidies) are more affordable than coal fired plants.

Yet, he is not prepared to start a small scale solar project on his farm without forever gathering information to see if it will really work. He has to rely on the outcome of a neighboring solar project, and then more questioning of the neighbour's results.

Could it really be that cc. has to wait until he can get a government subsidy? Or, is it just like his advice to us, too just relax, you will be able to drive your diesel trucks for a long time, with just relax, cc. will power his farm from a coal plant for a long time.

Come on cc., get off the pot and start offering those guided tours of your solar powered, non subsidized demonstration farm.

A picture of us waiting for that to happen:



...because the left won't walk their talk...

[oneoff]

Net capacity of Shand is 276 MW, fly ash control 99% and sulfer removed from exhaust gases; nitrogen polluting contaminants reduced by 50% though various cleaner burning techniques.

Not too many deliberate lies and misleading statements in post above????.

[oneoff]

HERE COMES THAT UNANSWERED KEY QUESTION AGAIN

What will net capacity be for the shiny new 10 Mw PV farm on a quarter section of land dedicated for it at Estevan Sask?

[burnt]

A seldom discussed fact in the PV solar scheme is the hazardous waste in the form of silica dust, highly toxic gases and extremely injurious greenhouse gases emitted during the production of solar panels.

It appears that the toxic residues and gases produced may be far worse than the emissions from coal plants, but the envirowhackos seem to conveniently leave those truths out of any discussion.

Not only that, but some of the noxious gases produced contribute 25,000 more to greenhouse gases than CO2, LOLLLZ! (from the IPCC)

[URL="http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cel l_Production_A_Primer.html"]http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cel l_Production_A_Primer.html[/URL]

It takes a special kind of hypocrite or ignoramus to try to promote PV electricity as being cleaner than the dirtiest coal-fired plant left in Canada. It's just that with PV solar, we don't see the junk it produces and since it's not in our back yard, why would we worry, right?

So, "green" energy isn't just as green as it is said to be.

Sickening, feeble-minded simpletons that foist this garbage on the rest of us. A classic case of the inmates running the asylum.

[chuckChuck]

"New production practices are on the c-Si manufacturing horizon, and new technologies are being developed to significantly reduce energy consumption. Efforts are being made to make thinner wafers - microcrystalline Si and nanocrystalline Si - that use less silicon, but these require manufacturing techniques from nanotechnology that may pose new kinds of occupational risks. "

Definitely lots of hazardous materials in Solar PV manufacture. How many other products do we consume in large quantities that have hazards as well? A lot! I am sure if we looked at any product including those used in agriculture we can find a list of hazards that may be of significant concern.

Should we more concerned about solar pv than say electronics in general? Who knows?

Is it a valid reason to stop manufacturing solar pv, LED TVs, pesticides, or using the oil sands because of hazards associated with their production?

[furrowtickler]

Again until this proven solar tech can be safely manufactured and costs are reduced significantly - a carbon tax should not be imposed. It will not do anything to change climate and is just a tax grab .
When all these green tech are proven and readily available at reasonable costs the turn down the dial on "fossil fuels". Until then don't kill the economy and those of us who actually produce tangible wealth and not wealth circulators.