Estevan considered for solar power

[oneoff]

So the NREL calculator says 1870 mwh with single axis adjustable tilt and 1397 mwh with fixed vs Sask Power at 1400mwh. So adjustable tilt makes quite a bit of difference.

Interesting to see that the NREL estimate is vary close to the Sask Power one for fixed. The NREL uses 20 degrees tilt for fixed.

For my farm system, tilt is the way to go as the winter tilt is 70 degrees which will have very little problem with snow and increases output substantially in the winter and summer.

chuck you don't listen too good I quote you again about your NREL calculator.

You said "I used a simple solar electricity calculator from the NREL and punched in Estevan and a 10 mw system with 1 axis tilt set at 45 degrees year round.

It said output is 18,730,101 kwh per year. "


18,730,101Kwh isn't 1870 Mwh ....and it isn't close to 1397 Mwh

Its OK to make a mistake...you'll be quickly forgiven after even the slightest apology...but to persist in a lie needs to be challenged and corrected.

[chuckChuck]

Oneoff go enter 10 mw (10,000kw) into the solar calculator for Estevan.
http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php

It will show 13,973,113 kwh (13973) mwh of production. I must have missed 1 digit in my conversion.

So did Sask Power miss a digit as well because 1400 mwh of production is too low. At 1400 mwh of annual production annual revenue will be only $154,000 at .11 cents per kwh ($110/ mwh)

[oneoff]

To make things simpler stick to mwh or kwh don't use both when debating as it gets confusing to readers.

To make it clear sask power is estimating that the output from the proposed 10 mw fixed solar pv system at Estevan will be 1400 mwh per year.

To make it even clearer your claim of your NlREL calculation of 18,730,101 Kwh is practically the same as Sask Power's 1,400,000 Kwh (1400 Mwh for those who are easily confused) is patently absurd


This has nothing to do with confusing Mwh with kwh. Just yourself and maybe part of the public can't keep a factor of 1000 straight in their head.. This is a clear case of getting caught with your pants down and not being man enough to admit you were simply wrong. And I doubt if you will ever see that. As a result we all should be very wary of anything coming from you in the future as being based on facts; that even when proven to be in error; there is a steadfast claim that you're still convinced you are correct

[chuckChuck]

I am pretty sure Sask power gave you the wrong output number. Please double check.

See the output below from a 10mw plant in India with an estimated 18 million kwh (18000mwh). India would certainly have a better solar resource in many parts of the country than Saskatchewan but 14,000 mwh from Saskpower's Estevan proposal makes sense, not 1400mwh!


"Tata Power Solar has successfully commissioned a 10 MW solar PV plant in Karnataka, India – just four months after initially breaking ground on the project. The plant comprises 48,000 crystalline modules and is spread over a 52-acre site on non-agricultural land in the Karnataka state of India. It has an estimated annual output of 18 million kWH, and is owned by Jindal Aluminium Ltd (JAL), a Chitradurga-based company that specializes in the manufacture of aluminium products."

[oneoff]

Poerhouse solar.ca website was down. Still down Sunday Jan 16..... Pity.

[chuckChuck]

Here is your chance oneoff pounce! LOL No doubt you have never made a mistake in your life or miscalculated or mis-communicated.

Check Sask Powers estimate of output again. I will also check with Sask Power just to make sure.

[oneoff]

Very good eye chuck. That thought crossed my mind and upon careful reading you will see that I relayed only what the Sask Power professional engineer wrote in an email to me this morning. I carefully cut and pasted your latest uncorrected statements as I did with tweety. I took them all as evidence of what all those people had written. I'm contemplating reposting it in its entirety; as I had your keen observation in the back of my mind when I wrote that response.

The problem is that you tried to down play your calculation to be in line with what is probably not reasonable..

But you now jump to the conclusion that Sask Power is out because a zero was missed. It could easily be that the first digit of the 1400Mwh figure was mistyped and should have been a 9. Those are two totally different possible explanations. It could be that someone forgot to multiply by 24 hours all the way through their planning process.....just as you steadfastly still hold that 18,730,101 is practically the same number as 1400 Mw

Upon reflection you will see that only three parties words were used against each other to show that someone was wrong. The engineer shouldn't make such a gross mistake and for all we know; Sask Power and "her" stated estimate may turn out to be in the ball park. And it wouldn't surprise me if this estimate error (if there is one) hasn't been carried forward for months.

But I'm still looking for a one time admission that ownership is taken for trying to pass off weak excuses of it being my fault that the Metric system isn't more straightforward. There's a limit to how simplistic something can be; before only children will play with it.

Then maybe we can both (even cooperatively) start letting the chips fall where they may...based on logic; correct data and estimates; being realistic about needs, competitiveness and going forward in bigger ways with new technology once it is pretty clear it is ready and viable for the tasks at hand.

[chuckChuck]

So I found another project with 10 MW of installed capacity at a more northerly latitude and the projected output is 15,579 MWh/yr. So 1400 MWh/yr. is way off the mark for 10 MW.

I have emailed Sask Power.

[chuckChuck]

My adjustment from 18,000 to 14,000 MWh output had to do with a adjustable tilt panel vs a fixed panel. The NREL solar calculator shows the difference.

The error of 1400 - 14000 could be just a typo.

Too many conversions get confusing. I am not trying to mislead in any way. I want to know the real economics as well.

I am only using my "average" wits and the internet to research this.

Remember the Gimli Glider? Several experienced flight staff including the the pilot mis-calculated the amount of fuel needed and it ran out over Manitoba. They all used the wrong metric conversion or something like that.

[oneoff]

Evidence that once in a while solar promoters can be capable of rational reasoning and putting facts together





Cutting and pasting (without editing) is pretty reliable. I assure you the inquiry response does say "1400 Mwh per year" and over the last few days have a fair understanding about "nameplate ratings"; what units of electrical consumption means (Kwh and Mwh); how many hours in a day and hours in a year. Dividing yearly Kwh (or Mwh's) by 8760 gives averages of hourly production; downtime and dead of night means lower averages per hour and how derating and various loss factors decrease outputs in a cumulative manner. Solar appears to be about 15% of nameplate and coal steam generators are probably 85% uptime as you have suggested.


Its very easy (especially when new to a topic) to make mistakes and only honest mistakes qualify for maintaining full respect into the future. I don't try to dig holes deeper when nobodies throwing dirt back in.

Let us know what figures you get from Sask Power and again congratulations on being the second person to wonder why figures aren't all within reason of each other. We may yet be both be surprised.

[chuckChuck]

The typo could have occurred within Sask Power.

[Hamloc]

At 14000 mwh, that is 14000000 kwh x 11 cents a kwh is 1.54 million, with a 25 million dollar initial investment that is just over a 16 year payback with no profits taken and no maintanence costs factored in. Would have to add a year or two to allow for financing costs. Does this sound like a money making venture? No private company would invest in a project that makes no money in 18 years. Also I am sure that solar panels are not an appreciable asset lol!

[oneoff]

And thats probably why the tune changed to Sask Power saying they are buying a quarter section at Estevan. They may need to further sweeten the pot with incentives and there is absolutely nothing saying that even 80 cents a Kwh wouldn't change the economics a whole lot. After all that exactly what happened in Ontario some years ago and its still pretty attactive (at least on the surface)

see the link aways back in this thread that burnt provided for current rates paid in Ontario

[oneoff]

The typo could have occurred within Sask Power.

Again, assuming any mistake was made, but yes, I'm sure the author of an email is totally responsible for typing 1400Mwh; and it was obviously not a mass mailing; but a response to a specific question that definitely says "1400Mwh per year". But what I hope we both really want to know is what output the Corporation is banking on.

I've got a confirmation request in to the engineer's direct telephone line. Tomorrow if I can get past the security desk in Regina I'll try first hand as well. And that one isn't easy because you can be asked for your appointment and kind of rudely reminded that no one is available on short notice; its "Friday" and everyone is gone etc. We'll see. Its a challenge and only way to try to get first hand information.

How is your detective work on this same question advancing?

[oneoff]

[Sorry a repeat