Estevan considered for solar power

[oneoff]

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.

This is fukin unreal beyond any stretch of the imagination.

As others have noted this is exactly the same logic and reasoning one gets from chuck (on any topic of interest to him). Neither tweet nor chuck have any of the qualities essential in reporting; nor reasoning;nor researching nor debating in order to learn or for society to progress. Its an afront to intelligence to say the least.

Replace tried and true (coal,hydro and natural gas) with something (solar in this case) that works a maximum of 28.5 % of the time and then have the audacity to still curse what you are depending on. Duplicate but abuse what's still obviously required and depended upon. Make solar and wind the priority at any cost; but its only good for supplementing what are the work horses

Very valid point Alberta. I was going to mention about cracked panels, bad connections and shading; but already thought it was point, game and obvious match and they'd move onto another topic that might display their talents to better effect.

I'm still not sure that tweet has any idea that were're now talking three times the solar panel numbers and three times cost for solar panels and teir mounts and three times her land figures; and that figures used by me are actually really deliberately low balled way in solar's favor. The actual results will come in closer to SaskPowers 15% figure and not the 33 % I used only so nobody could claim a deliberate bias on my part.

There reaches a point where one must be entitled to lose all respect for certain points of view. Is this not one of them?


The real point is if Sask Power is making the same mistakes as chuck and tweet....and I'm sorely afraid they are when touting this 10 Mw capacity which can only be close to correct if they have a whopping 230,600 panels (17 sq feet each) which will be three layers deep on 15 acres..

Now there is the answer; stack panels and reuse the incident solar radiation three times.

Geez

[chuckChuck]

Lots of BS flying on this thread.

Solar doesn't work at Estevan. Snow, fog, rainy days clouds Etc. Never mind Estevan is one of the sunniest places in Canada.

Covering up too much land! Wholly shit! Estevan and area has been strip mined for decades and old spill piles still dot the landsape. Boundary and rafferty reservoirs covered how many acres? How many sections have been used for coal and you are worried about 1/4 section? Get a brain!

Solar too expensive. The LCOE as I pointed out shows this not to be the case. But don't let independent facts spoil your fun. Boyd Solar calculated 10 cents per kwh for grid tie systems isntalled. Which is cheaper than current Sask rates!

And to top it off solar pv manufacturing is dirty, causes pollution and damages the environment. So all of a sudden those who have no friggin regard for most environmental issues are suddenly pulling the "solar pv should not be used because it is damaging the environment" card.

LOL

When did you turn into environmentalists? I guess only when you think you can score some points against solar pv.

What a bunch of lame posts. It is either really sad or really too funny to believe. It is hard to take your logic seriously.

Fortunately Sask Power and Brad Wall will make their own plans and you guys are not in charge.

[tweety]

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?

I actually use solar, yes. And when the sun shines, it works, charges batteries that provide the power for lighting at night with efficient LED lights. Could i just turn on them with the grid, absolutely. If voltage drops too low from cloudy days, grid charges them.

And here is the part that seems to be sooooo hard to get across. When the sun shines, and it does most of the time even when fairly cloudy, it makes power.

Define viable in light of non renewable energy that is non renewable.

[tweety]

So if not solar, and not wind, and nothing apparently exists that is renewable or "viable" compared to highly dense and basically free non renewable energy, what is your brilliant plan for the future for when that non renewable is in short supply and 100 times the cost? Then start doing research?

Just stick your head in the sand till then?

Oneoff, you're a smart guy, we could argue till the cows come home, but it is very easy to bash projects with ridiculous claims such as Estevan is short of land base to put up 50 acres of cells, the cells need to lean too far and that will take up ten more acres, i won't put a flag in the ground till solar costs less then raping the land for coal and gas........

So what should be the future plan oh wise renewable energy master?

[oneoff]

I actually use solar, yes. And when the sun shines, it works, charges batteries that provide the power for lighting at night with efficient LED lights. Could i just turn on them with the grid, absolutely. If voltage drops too low from cloudy days, grid charges them.

And here is the part that seems to be sooooo hard to get across. When the sun shines, and it does most of the time even when fairly cloudy, it makes power.

Define viable in light of non renewable energy that is non renewable.

AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR SLOW LEARNERS AND THOSE WHO WON"T LISTEN


But when direct or diffuse radiation is insufficient(for maximum rate output) or totally absent (aka night hours) would you still say its working 24 hours a day (Sask Power says 15%...others in industry say 18 to 20.5 hours of usable use.). And that what your calculations conveyed...that is that the 10 or 20 Mw projects (ie 240Mwh or 240,000Kwh) would be produced in a 24 hour period) are indeed approx 1.5 Mw ( or maybe 3.0 Mw net capacity units averaged over a day. Theres a big difference and its an important one.

Viable (on its own) doesn't mean an abundant supply for 15% of time or even a third of the time. When talking about food supplies for instance, maybe going through even one time period in a lifetime where you starved to death; is of little consolation; even if if food supplies later became available again. Relying on electricity or telephones that work for all applicable uses; and 99.99% uptime is the way to go. Get the mix that produces the desired effect and don't try to force that which is not yet available, proven, affordably priced and shown to be dependable under actual circumstances.

[oneoff]

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...

I'm really not at all informed about tracking devices for solar panels; but I can imagine 240,000 panels almost 6 feet by 3 feet; connected together and moving East to west (and whipping back east for morning; while simultaneously adjusting inclination every day over the 4 seasons. Pretty much would have to be scheduled with time clocks; gps position input; and some computer circuitry and several limit controls for each panel seeing as how PV panels seem to have flat surface. Sure some miles and mile of linkages could be made to work for interconnecting; but on just one axis and a couple hundred thousand rods or straps ( each obviously long enough to connect to next panel 3 or 6 feet in length) and you got say 6 times 200,000 panels equals over a million feet or roughly 200 miles of straps to push or pull. How t do that rotating and tilting??? Shorten it up by rotating panels to "Landscape view" and its 100 miles or so. More shading problems though. Independent panel control sounds like way to much additional add ons as a person can think about what the old 9 foot diameter satellite dishes needed for even fixed mounts.

A true potential nightmare But all the more reason to investigate what tracking devices have been designed and found useful in 10Mw projects.

Will report in later. Thats what should make curious people want to learn something new.

[oneoff]

Here's a real time link to Ontarios Solar tracker (real time no less) electrical generating system. Thanks burnt for the hint that allowed this information to be found.



I think that every installed system logs in and reports everything going on at every PV solar site, and the data and archives of past performance are nothing short of awesome.

A 10 Kw unit reportedly costs 100,000 bucks, but its professionally installed and turnkey. There s a very sophisticated tracking sytem included which reportedly increases output by 30 to 40 %; no doubt because it is capable of actually perpendicularly following the sun at times. That tracker controls a 10Kw of solar panel array. so theoreticlly is almost 38 times lager than tweeties 265 watt units. part of that will be the 30 to 40% increase with technology not in tweeties scenario Case #1.


And this high tech (very interesting stuff I will eagerly admit) has a paybak of 7 years sselling to Ontario hydro under contract. There is no escalation for costs of living type increases under this program

And there is a major major component that is king of unheard of and probably won't ever be repeated again and that is

A now very recently expired program guarantees 80.2 cents a Kwh for anything now generated and ongoing into the future.

So much for 4 cent a Kwh solar panel cost of generation as has been mentioned on this forum.

Indeed if those program electrical recipients were paid 4 cents/Kwh instead of 80.2 cents; the payback period would be of the order of

140 years instead of 7 years as advertised on the powerhousesolar.ca


Anyway there is lots more to learn from the data available above; and another way to confirm or deny if 10 MW at Estevan or approx 10 Kw in Ontario means anything close to what can be expected except for a few hours on some cooperating days.

Thanks again burnt


Solar tracker[URL="http://http://portal.powerhousesolar.ca/publicinfo.aspx?trackerid=14"]http://http://portal.powerhousesolar.ca/publicinfo.aspx?trackerid=14[/URL]

[tweety]

Of course it won't work 24 hours a day! But why are you so hung up on that?

There are other sources of power that will work during the year when solar does not. But, during those 2500 hours it WILL work.

Solar isn't a replacement. Its in addition to current sources of power. Just like my solar lighting. The sun adds power when it can - and it does a lot of the time. And when it can't i use grid non renewable power.

So please stop saying it won't solve all the power problems 24 hours a day. It won't. Everyone gets that.

But for 2500 hours a year it will provide renewable power. Maybe a bit more costly - maybe not, but your rich white affluent ass should start to afford it.

And in case you still missed it, solar isn't a replacement for non renewable, its additive. No matter how many mwh numbers you type, that is all solar is doing, helping turn down the gas just a little bit.

Do you understand where i am coming from? Solar isn't the complete replacement answer, just part of it.

[jensend]

They could cover that whole coal mine site with solar panels and it would only be an improvement. You're worried about the environmental consequences of solar? That mine is environmental terrorism. All to dig out some of the poorest quality coal you can find. Lmao over some of these arguments. The technology will only get better the same as the JD D was just a step in developing the tractors of today.

[oneoff]

Tell Alberta its additive after coal plants are being paid 96 million each, per year to shut down (That from memory).

It not about additive; its supposed to be about replacement of fossil fuel input to steam generation with "renewable" wind and solar going into the future.

This whole program was sold as reducing carbon emitters and now that promoters have won there is finally a recognition that the whole system completely falls apart if we don't continue our supposed dirty ways " for a long time yet".

Too bad that difference of 15 or 45 acres for a site means nothing. I guess it depends on your perspective.

Too bad solar production pollution isn't viewed in same light as tar sands and coal problems. Again depends on how big a hypocrite one is..

For those who ponder that decision but leave it up in the air I suggest

"Just show consistency and you will find that your answer doesn't require waffling".

You are out by a factor of 3 or 4 or maybe even 6 in what is needed fpr solar PV net capacity in long run (eg a day or week or year). That isn't coal's problem.

[chuckChuck]

Solar is a very small part of Saskpower's plan at this point. Wind is where they are planning 1600 mw by 2030. Coal then slips to only 25% of Saskatchewan's power need or less unless there are new coal plants planned.

Utility scale solar may be a ways off, but small scale grid tie solar is possible now. Once SaskPower crunches the numbers on the 10mw plan and runs it for a awhile we will know if it is worth investing more.

Solar panels are coming down in price and getting more efficient.

If cheaper large scale battery storage is available, then solar pv may be widespread in many areas of the world if not here in Saskatchewan.

[binthere]

jensend. how many people do you know that still require a team of horses for energy that now run tractors or autos? other than a third world country.

[tweety]

Binthere, and what will happen when the non renewable energy it uses is a lot more scarce and expensive?

I know, not your problem. Right?

[oneoff]

Why would anyone even contemplate battery backup; if already connected to the grid; and it cosst only $400 annually for the basic meter and $600 for the bidirectional setup and net metering (plus plus fees that really apply no matter what setup is chosen) hooked to same PV solar system that will not meet needs under at least some conditions. And that basically means all normal farm conditions. And then there is no need for batteries or storage at all.

[oneoff]

Tweety...get consistent...are we going to have to depend only the "additive" solar or not. If answer is yes then continue to get used to paying your electric bill no matter the color of your ass. If answer is no...then you still need to pay whatever is billed.