Estevan considered for solar power

[bucket]

DEF for diesel engines was promoted and approved by government only to find out its being mothballed within the next few years.....

[fjlip]

What is wrong with DEF? killing us too? Replace with what?

[oneoff]

Were we not told that one of the compelling reasons to do away with coal was the very high health risks and costs associated with asthma incidence in places like Estevan and coal mining hazards wherever it is worked with.

And I'm pretty sure chuck is now saying that risk of manufacturing solar materials is totally acceptable whilst I firmly believe it was one of the reasons to say any lump of coal mined was a health tragedy

There is a limit to tolerance at which one should be able to say ...enough is enough hypocrisy.

[oneoff]

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

Just be consistent and the answer will become clear to anyone.

[tweety]

They never said they are going to use the whole quarter, only part. a good chunk is for community energy projects as well.

I for one am glad they are doing this here in our province. Not a huge scale, 20 mw is tiny compared to a "normal" installation.

In 1954 a typical panel put out 20 watts, in 2012, 200 watts, in 2016, 265 watts. Notice the trend?

17 sq ft per panel and 265 watts and 20 MW is about 30 acres. Not exactly a quarter section.

Now relax you oil and coal barrens, and let a little sunshine into your lives.

[Oliver88]

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.

The litmus test for a RELIABLE source of power is if it can produce power without a subsidy and if it requires a backup source on stand-by.
When greenies like Chuckchuck quit heating their homes in winter with fossil fuels or hydro than we will know there is a chance solar is an option.
Until than coal, natural gas, hydro will power our houses when it's -30, we should be very thankful the cold prairies have these options available.

[sumdumguy]

Oliver-no kidding, we will look forward to their results.

[tweety]

The litmus test for a RELIABLE source of power is if it can produce power without a subsidy and if it requires a backup source on stand-by.
When greenies like Chuckchuck quit heating their homes in winter with fossil fuels or hydro than we will know there is a chance solar is an option.
Until than coal, natural gas, hydro will power our houses when it's -30, we should be very thankful the cold prairies have these options available.

Hope you realize how silly that sounds. Basically don't do anything, try anything, research anything, learn anything until its proven and workable technology "competing" with the ultimate in condensed energy that - and in case you still don't know - is going to run out!

Why does it all have to be better then non renewable before it gets used? Shouldn't we be doing projects like this BEFORE we are short on non renewable energy?

Oh and btw, hydroelectric is green so chuckchuck is more then half way there, include geothermal and he is there.

Its not about being green, the stupidest term ever, its about realizing non renewable is NON RENEWABLE and we have got to start paying up and not completely screw over future generations ya greedy bunch!

[oneoff]

They never said they are going to use the whole quarter, only part. a good chunk is for community energy projects as well.

I for one am glad they are doing this here in our province. Not a huge scale, 20 mw is tiny compared to a "normal" installation.

In 1954 a typical panel put out 20 watts, in 2012, 200 watts, in 2016, 265 watts. Notice the trend?

17 sq ft per panel and 265 watts and 20 MW is about 30 acres. Not exactly a quarter section.

Now relax you oil and coal barrens, and let a little sunshine into your lives.

Thanks for providing those figures. Now there is actually something to work with. But lets check your math

TOTALLY IGNORED POST SO MIGHT AS WELL BE DELETED, BUT WHAT THE H>>>> ITS PROBABLY 100% ACCURATE OR AT LEAST CLOSE TO THE TRUTH

For simplicity; for the first case #1 lets first agree it is perfectly flat land. and further that were're talking 20 Mw and not 10 Mw which is what the Estevan project will start out at. Further I hope we can agree that solar panels are basically producing no output during darkness and varying output when sunlight is not perpendicular to the surface and further there are derating factors of all sorts that never improve output above approx 265 watt/panel (and certainly can produce zero output at most extreme conditions of the degrading factors). And lastly we agree that not every degrading output factor need be present at one time, as any one factor that would cause zero output can't be improved by all other conditions being perfect.


30 acres times 43560 sq ft/acre is 1306800 sq ft
Each panel is 17 sq ft in size so 1306800 sq ft divided by 17 means to cover every sq ft when laid flat on that 30 acre would take 76870 panels.

Now each panel when exposed to "maximum sunlight "has a rated output of 265 watts per panel (again 17 sq ft in size).

Now for Case #1 we want a 20 Mw demonstation PV nameplate rating. So we can double check the math and assumptions by

20,000,000 watts project divided by 265 watts per panel equals 75471 panels.

AND YOUR MATH IS INDEED CORRECT using the agreed assumption and provided data. And on the surface and a 10Mw project would only need 15 acres of land for the panels under the agreed upon assumptions (and a 20 Mw project would take 30 acres.... EXCEPT

At Estevan Sk, with a latitude of 49.14 degrees N the optimum angle of tllt to expose PV panels to sunlight is not laying flat on a horizontal surface. Its 40..2 degrees and according to the computer model of NASA (referred to in numerous previous posts) the "Monthly averaged Radiation Incident on an Equator-Pointed Tilted surface in Kwh/sq.meter/day at Estevan Sk (over a 22 year period of data is 4.25 Kwh /sq meter/day) at that 40.2 degrees of optimum tilt.

From that same data set of NASA if there is NO TILT to the panels which is indeed the case here; one could expect that 3.59 Kwh/sq meter/day energy would strike those panels (on average)

Now 3.59 divided by 4.25 is 84.5% (and I rounded up just to be fair)

SO for starters the project is going to hamstring itself with a 15.5 % loss of output if you don't put some tilt to those panels (and it does need to be about 40 degrees to be optimum.) That tilt causes some "shading effects" at various times of the year which if you don't space the panels sufficiently causes a round of reduced output because you are dealing with only maybe diffuse radiation instead of direct striking rays. At Estevan diffuse radiation is only about 42% as strong as direct striking rays.

And further to above remember that 40.2 degrees is just a best compromise angle; probably only perfect at two times a year and obviously a fair ways from perfect when low angle of sun occurs in winter and much different angle in summer sun. Now in winter one should err on a fair bit wider spacing to try to get maximum output without those shading losses than shouldn't be a problem in summer.

Sure if someone could design some "sun flower" sun following mechanism that had x degrees of freedom to continuously and synchronously adjust itself with simplicity,ease and precision; these problems would all go away; except for shading. But to my knowledge this just isn't available and would be an engineering nightmare. Don't know what patents have been approved for that perpetually growing sun flower plant.


But for now we are stuck with fixed tilted mounts when dealing with 80,000 panels probably weighing over 40 pounds each.

So one of many factors down and more than 15% error in previous authors calculations and in order to correct that error the stated land area required has to increase significantly. Thats only important if waste of land doesn't matter.

Now onto bigger oversights. The sun doesn't shine 100% of the time at 49 degrees latitude; and the sky isn't always clear enough and various other factors degrade output (like dew and sleet and maybe a snow bank in rare instances or a severe hailstorm); even a very conservative 10 % loss of output thoughout the useful life of a project should be factored in. Might as well be honest and admit there will be outages and especially the sun does set regularly.

Sask Power has used figures like 15% of the time you get solar output(whatever they meant). Others admit that you can count on decent outout for 4 1/2 to 6 hours so lets be quite generous and say 8 hours a day, every day or 33% of the time; solar delivers as advertised max output rating.

That means that you need to oversize that Sask Power 20 MW project by 3 times to get 10Mw equivalent 24 hour Mwh output; meaning that 30 acres is expanded to 90 acres covered with three times the number of panels (plus of course that 15% more panels needed if they were left laying parallel to the ground....or alternatively tilt and space them to prevent shading and of course the mentioned extra spacing needed to prevent shading in winter when sun appears lower on the horizon. Don't confuse the 15% with the 66%, but they can compound each other.

Show me any bullshit in the above logic; or be prepared for additional oversight, pointing out misrepresentations and shallow thinking rebuttals...but please no arguing facts..

[oneoff]

Could somebody at least confirm a PV solar solution like Sask Power's 10 Mw proposal is going to produce 240,000 Kwh of electricity per day (240Mwh/day) or is it only a small fraction of what one would expect from something touted as a 10 Mw "generating" capability over at least its operational life.

You see...my guess is that the Sask Power project entails three time the number of panels (at least) as Case#1 is based on; which means three times the land required just for more panels; which brings it right back to 45 acres (minimum for 10 MW and 90 acres for 20 Mw) and thats just for a solid block of panels with no access whatever and no room for wiring, maintenance or other infrastructure etc taken into account

[tweety]

Are we running out of land in Estevan fricking sk oneoff? Is it overcrowded? Is it canada's hong kong?

I used 20 to make sure enough space is reserved for the angle. And the reference is in mw and not mwh.

When the sun is out, it makes power, for 2500 hours per year. The sunniest spot in Canada they say it is.

Again, when the sun is out, it makes power. Who gives a crap if it uses 100 acres or 50. When the sun is out, it makes power. During that time, kick back on the coal and natural gas. Save some NON RENEWABLE during that time. When its dark, turn up the coal, turn on the gas.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Its not replacement, its additive.

[binthere]

so now according to tweety it does not matter if solar is viable. we have ample land so lets cover it all up with solar panels and hope for the best. tweety i will ask again do you have a functioning solar system and if not why?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Show me any bullshit in the above logic; or be prepared for additional oversight, pointing out misrepresentations and shallow thinking rebuttals...but please no arguing facts..

Shading is actually quite a bit worse than what you state. I forget the exact relationship, but if you shade a portion of a panel, or an array, the output is reduced by substantially more than just the percentage that is shaded. For perfect output, all panels have to receive the same amount of sunlight. Analagous to putting batteries in parallel, All will be reduced to the output of the poorest battery. So if they are partially shaded, reduce the output by much more than the actual percent in your calcs.

I often see people setting up their solar panels facing different directions and angles under the theory that they will catch sun at more times of day/year, but the premise is flawed.

[stonepicker]

#tweety the new chucky3

[burnt]

oneoff - "Sure if someone could design some "sun flower" sun following mechanism that had x degrees of freedom to continuously and synchronously adjust itself with simplicity,ease and precision; these problems would all go away; except for shading. But to my knowledge this just isn't available and would be an engineering nightmare. Don't know what patents have been approved for that perpetually growing sun flower plant."

Unless I'm not understanding your scenario properly, there are a ton of tracker systems here in Ontario, mostly 10KwH units installed under the mirco-FiT program. They are to increase output by 30% over stationary panels of the same size.

A lot of farmers put these things in their fields, putting multiple obstructions to work around in otherwise open spaces.

Which should tell you that they are getting well-paid for their trouble. Which indeed they are. At the expense of their neighbors.

What is interesting and revealing is that not one of these 'entrepreneurs" would install one strictly for their own use, obviously because of the cost and inefficiency.

But these same greedy scoundrels don't mind collecting their check at the expense of someone else. The early systems were given under 20 yr contracts at 80 cents/KwH. Our current average cost at our meter is about 20 cents, give or take.

Can you say subsidized...

It's the liberal way...