sOLAR PANEL REALITY

[oneoff]

Take a look at this report (Its the link to CBC story that was provided near beginning of this thread)


"The task, if one was purely going to meet it with PV solar panels and batteries, is fairly monumental."

$1M just for the batteries

According to the team's calculations, the average Victoria home would need 120 square metres of PV panels and storage capacity equal to 131 Tesla Powerwall batteries.

A single Powerwall costs about $9,000. For most people, Robertson said, that's just too much of an investment up front.

"You're looking at spending a million dollars purely in batteries, not to even speak to the PV costs," he said.


Is it not unconscionable to ignore the facts that happen to go along with the selected theory of how some brainstorm of radical change is a "no brainer" solution? Is it not a case of deliberate oversimplification; and ignoring all that is problematic?

It just so happens that solar panels are but a fraction of any permanent solar solution. And the cost analysis can't even necessarily be compared between different countries eg. tariffs, policies, regulations, type approvals, labor rates and on and on


The facts are that solar might that could work approx. 15% of time; barring catastrophic failures; whilst in reality piggybacking on a separate system that must remain in place to provide near total reliability for the grid which will continue to provide societies power needs

[oneoff]

I took the bait and followed the link

http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MiningCleanEnergy2017.pdf

What it says in the "India's world largest solar project"

IT PURPORTS the following about a truly world class project in INDIA (2016).....


648 MW generating capacity (enough to supply 150,000 homes); Site required for 2.5 million panels is 10 km by 10 km ( or 100 square kilometers by my calculations...which is about more than a township in size) and could be buiLt in 8 months and should cost about 900 million Canadian.

Now pick that apart. This is Canada we're interested in transferring this model of progress to (not ANOTHER ONE FOR India)

648 MW is not the continuous output that can be realistically expected to be produced. In fact its impossible for the simple fact that no where on earth does the sun shine 24 hours a day continuously throughout the year. In fact no one could argue that much more than 15% of 648MW is available "continuously" even in most ideal location on earth. THAT'S NOT A GIVEN FROM PAST EXPERIENCE

The claim about 150,000 homes to be supplied is not clear if they are Indian construction (and that countries environmental conditions) or to Canada market where this template suggest it could be duplicated in 8 months and at a cost of 900 million Canadian funds.

Fibre optics in Sask cost 25,000 per km; a single transformer is over a million bucks and power lines are $500,000 a kilometer or so according to Sask Power. You'd think that the Sask Power Estevan solar demonstration project would be completed by now; but it still appears years down the road (if ever) by the looks of it). What else was left out of the propaganda? Even the electrical inspection branch charges an arm and a leg for inspections and project value; any trench must be made to CSA standards; the fee is on Canadian costs and not third world labor rates and standards or materials.


Lets be reasonable. Do some homework. All above from recollection and what I think is common sense details that have be deliberately omitted.

Now open to grassy chewing me a new asshole.

[seldomseen]

I saw pictures of solar panels covered with snow but with the sun as low as it is here during the winter months the panels would have to be standing almost vertical so snow would never stay on them.

[oneoff]

Our present Sask consumer electrical costs are substantial. Those costs will rise astronomically no matter what portion of the supply mix comes from solar. And its debatable whether cheap solar panels are a fair assessment of the total costs of going "solar" for electricity.

If that is not true; then show me the instances of solar innovators who will admit that their investment (after accounting for any distorting subsidies that have come out of other people's pockets; and taking into account their preferential access and being paid even when their production isn't really required by an electrical system that can't even count on their name plate output ) actually is any cheaper than a comparable alternate energy supply.

I know for a fact that even if natural gas were available for free; that your generator running 8760 hours per year (or an adequate battery reserve for all uses we utilize a grid power supply) would never be actually free and probably not a competitive economic alternative. If its economics that drives business (and that's a measure of surviving in business and against other countries competitors) then survival is pretty important.) . That most likely applies to "free" energy from the sun; if such producers were totally honest

You may argue with even with a statement like "You'd be the first applicant to successfully operate an independent power producer flare gas cogeneration project. in Sask of less than 100KW generating capacity gas."


But you'd find that to be true (at least less than 2 years ago) if you asked Sask Power . And that fact would certain remain true into the future as the application process has been put on hold until further notice. You pursue projects such as mentioned; and you will be left with no answers to some important concerns...and at end of the month or year or decade could still be waiting for the first economically successful project.


But things also happen for other than pure economic motives. A fact that will no doubt be lost in anticipated replies.
I assure you there's a whole lot more to green energy than what some reporter (or manufacturer) publishes as a well laid out advertisement or news release.

[Hamloc]

Interesting to note the largest solar farm in California is the Topaz solar farm. Completed in 2014. 550 MW. Construction cost was $2.4 billion. Operated at 24.4% efficiency in 2014-2015. If you look at the solar power efficiency map for North America you will see we only have roughly 62% of the potential production efficiency in central Alberta when compared to California, so an equivelent installation in central Alberta would only produce at 15.12% efficiency and would probably cost more than one in the USA for the simple reason that it always does cost more in Canada due to tariffs and taxes. Also interesting to note how much cheaper it is to build in India. So all the cut and pastes about how cheap solar is in say Mexico or India really don't apply in Canada. Higher constructions cost, lower efficiency of production, just the way it is.

[tweety]

Example 4021 of gubmints wasting tax dollars.

[URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/solar-self-sufficiency-not-feasible-1.4427770"]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/solar-self-sufficiency-not-feasible-1.4427770[/URL]

I'm all for solar panels and batteries when you spend your own money on them. Go for it!

But for gubmints to incinerate hard working people's tax dollars on them is insane at this point in time.

So you good with spending billions of tax dollars on non renewable oil, gas, and coal?

Article brought to you by the same people who think glyphosate causes cancer.

[oneoff]

And the same tunnel vision and refusal to entertain thoughts about any of the flaws in facts and reasoning that are conveniently ignored or downplayed.

[oneoff]

Here's just a "minor" correction about 1.7 cent/KWH green power from solar sources....\\\ Maybe promoters would like to confirm or deny this foot note I just ran across. Whoops!!!!


Corrections

A previous version of this story quoted sources describing the new low price as being from solar energy. We've since determined that new low price was actually from wind.
Nov 27, 2017 2:33 PM ET

[RWT101]

So you good with spending billions of tax dollars on non renewable oil, gas, and coal?

Article brought to you by the same people who think glyphosate causes cancer.

Can you understand the graph in this article?

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/16/canada-exports-manufacturing_n_4283794.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/16/canada-exports-manufacturing_n_4283794.html[/URL]

And you want to destroy Canada's energy sector for exactly what reason?

[oneoff]

The chart above was from data previous to Nov 2013.

Maybe the chart has been fixed by the oil price crash since that time. Also maybe selling raw product at firesale prices doesn't fix real economic problems.

Usually that has something to do with losing money on every unit sold...so you try to double units sold to become profitable and find out that balance sheet still gives at least double previous losses.