• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Electricity again

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Chuck this came from abc website pro climate change renewable energy media organization. So thinking there figures maybe correct. About what i thought.

    Solar firms and farms are springing up across the country, and more than 20 per cent of the nation's homes have solar installations.

    There is also largescale investment by state governments in , with the aim of driving down household power bills.

    But despite their growing popularity, there are still some lingering misconceptions about how solar cells work, especially in very hot weather.

    "A solar panel is a bit like the silicon chip inside your computer, if it gets too hot it doesn't work quite so well," University of WA resources scientist Ray Wills said.

    Parts of southern Australia, including Adelaide, are currently enduring an unusually hot start to autumn.

    Temperatures rising above 40 degrees Celsius are expected across South Australia on Saturday, with temperatures in the high 30s forecast in parts of Victoria.

    Will the heat help or hinder solar panels?



    In sweltering conditions, many will switch on their air conditioners, driving up demand for electricity.

    While it is easy to assume that blazing sunshine would boost the performance of solar panels, generating more power, that is not necessarily the case.

    "A really hot day, you'll actually produce less power because the solar panel gets so hot," engineer and solar analyst Finn Peacock said.

    "The heat from the sun actually degrades the efficiency of the panel.

    "So the perfect conditions for solar are strong sun but cold, which is pretty unusual unless you're in the Arctic."

    What works best?

    In order to work at maximum efficiency, the perfect temperature for a solar panel is about 25C.

    But that refers to the temperature of the panel itself, not the atmospheric temperature.

    "On a 45C day, I would expect the panel to be at least 75C, so the panel is 50C hotter than the optimum," Mr Peacock said.

    For every degree above that optimum, power output will decline by about half a per cent.

    "If it's 10C higher than normal, it's underperforming by 5 per cent which is not a lot," University of NSW solar researcher Renate Egan said.

    It's all about light, not heat

    There are different types of solar energy production: solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal.

    As its name suggests, solar thermal harnesses the heat of the sun and operates in a similar way to a coal-fired power station — it boils water and generates steam.



    But most rooftop solar panels and solar farm projects in Australia are photovoltaic — they convert light into electricity.

    "The way solar PV works is that you have this material, typically silicon, and there's a certain kind of magic that goes on in silicon," Associate Professor Egan said.

    "It's known as a semi-conductor, which means it conducts electricity some of the time.

    "When you shine a light on [it], it generates free electrons and those electrons can then travel, so it becomes a conductor when it's exposed to light. That's how a solar panel works."

    The reason extreme heat hinders that process is because of the basic physical properties of the semi-conductor.

    Is this bad for power bills?

    Not necessarily.

    While electricity output from household solar panels was likely to drop on Saturday, that doesn't mean homes would stop producing their own power, or even be producing less power than they need.

    "It's not a show stopper. It's still very useful to have solar during a heatwave. If you've got a good system, it should power your house through," Mr Peacock said.

    "You may produce 30 kilowatt hours in the day instead of 40 kilowatt hours in the day, but if you've got a reasonably efficient home that would be way more than enough to power your home through the heatwave."

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by grassfarmer View Post
      That makes no sense Hamloc - how can it not be producing unless it is offline for a maintenance issue? If there is sunlight it will be producing - i'd question the reporting accuracy - sure that it wasn't 12:28am?

      edit - I looked at the AESO report and some of the coal and gas generators are also indicating zero production. Shut down? being serviced? who knows but clearly it's not true to say that solar doesn't produce on a day when there is sun - it must be in the way this is reported.
      So let me get this straight because it isn't producing on a sunny day you question the reporting accuracy? There has been snow storms in southern Alberta the last few days. Having said that I quite often check the AESO sight midday and the highest production I have seen yet from the Brooks solar farm is 2 MW. If I remember correctly this solar farm covers 78 acres. If they were snow covered would be quite a job to clean. Still doesn't change the fact that when it is -30 electricity is necessary to survive in today's world and if the solar panels are snow covered and not producing the power has to come from somewhere. Also keep in mind that the NDP changed how electrical generation is payed for in Alberta. It is now called a capacity market. So generators are payed for the capacity whether it is producing or not. Good deal for generators, not so much for consumers. I am not against solar power, what I am against is the messaging. Can it supplement power generation when conditions are right, absolutely. Can it replace baseload and supply our power needs 24 hrs a day 365 days a year, not a chance!

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
        So let me get this straight because it isn't producing on a sunny day you question the reporting accuracy?....
        Yes if this is what you are basing your info on.

        http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html http://http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html

        As you say it indicates zero output from the solar at Brooks but also zero from the coal generation at Sheerness#2, Sundance #3+#5 as well as several of the gas powered generators. If this is where your info on Brooks is coming from clearly more of an explanation of the reporting is needed.

        Comment


          #34
          Modern power grid has a lot of switching and details to match an always variable demand.

          This simple document describes some of the terms.

          https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50169.pdf

          I'm just a shtferbrains farmer and not a solar power engineer like K-Chucks friends but I do talk to some of the plant operations guys around town.

          It can get pretty hairy and the grid is getting neglected .

          Comment


            #35
            Neglected yes, As is all the infrastucture in canada
            Make sure you have a generator

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
              So let me get this straight because it isn't producing on a sunny day you question the reporting accuracy? There has been snow storms in southern Alberta the last few days. Having said that I quite often check the AESO sight midday and the highest production I have seen yet from the Brooks solar farm is 2 MW. If I remember correctly this solar farm covers 78 acres. If they were snow covered would be quite a job to clean. Still doesn't change the fact that when it is -30 electricity is necessary to survive in today's world and if the solar panels are snow covered and not producing the power has to come from somewhere. Also keep in mind that the NDP changed how electrical generation is payed for in Alberta. It is now called a capacity market. So generators are payed for the capacity whether it is producing or not. Good deal for generators, not so much for consumers. I am not against solar power, what I am against is the messaging. Can it supplement power generation when conditions are right, absolutely. Can it replace baseload and supply our power needs 24 hrs a day 365 days a year, not a chance!
              We are all in agreement that intermittent renewables can't supply base load without storage. No need to keep bringing that up.

              Take a look at where Alberta's electricity comes from. Then read the AESO assessment for Renewable Integration.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Albertas-Power-Graph-2017-02.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	13.7 KB
ID:	767123

              https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/2018-Transmission-Capability-Assessment-for-Renewables-Integration-Final.pdf

              https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/Addendum-to-2018-Transmission-Capability-Assessment-Final-Feb2019.pdf

              Comment


                #37
                [QUOTE=grassfarmer;403777]Yes if this is what you are basing your info on.

                http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html http://http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html

                As you say it indicates zero output from the solar at Brooks but also zero from the coal generation at Sheerness#2, Sundance #3+#5 as well as several of the gas powered generators. If this is where your info on Brooks is coming from clearly more of an explanation of the reporting is needed.[/QUOTE.

                If it says Current Supply and Demand report in the top left corner you are there. I looked this morning and there was 3 coal plants producing 0, 6 of 20 wind turbine sights producing 0 and roughly 11 gas powered were producing 0. I think what is important is to look at the top and calculate what method of generation produces what percentage of total output. Keep in mind this is updated every minute. At 8:06 am 57% of Alberta's electricity was coming from natural gas, 36.4% from coal, 1.57% from hydro, 2.63% from Biomass and other and 2.4% from wind. What is interesting for me is the Alberta government wants to generate 30% of our electricity from renewable sources. This morning wind is doing better and producing at 18% efficiency. Current total demand at 8:06 was 10810 MW. 30% of this is 3243 MW. To generate this with wind turbines producing at 18% would take a total generation capacity of 18000 MW. Present generation capacity in Alberta from all sources is 16157 MW. As I said before, renewables are fine to contribute to the grid when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining but you still need a method of generation you can depend on 24 hrs a day 365 days a year.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Well I found the full hour conversation with two decision makers (of consequence and as reported previously in this thread) to be most interesting and informative. When shared with others there doesn't seem to be even a parting remark.

                  Not meaning it still wasn't a very good idea to take the time and a bit of travel expense to learn some first hand information.

                  What I take away is that the readership is fed the wonderful solar solution to personal farm situations....but nowhere will those promoters say what their solar production was for individual months (eg. December, January and February). Then its vital to know what their actual total Kwh of usage were for those same periods. It would be informative to generally know whether major appliances (stove, water heater, clothes dryer welder, aeration fans) were in use and of an electrical nature; and even the solar array size (although with a claimed 20 kw output on a short period of a "good day" it must be at least a 20 Kw installation).

                  None of such data should be proprietory; or necessarily personally identifiable. Just picking out the best hour or even the "impressive" single month could be very misleading.

                  The rest of us did pay for some portion after all. And it is being used to convince everyone that they should jump on board. On top of that its pretty hard to not identify solar arrays from a distance; etc. etc


                  It could be correct that the train is leaving the station; but that doesn't guarantee that it is headed in the right direction and at a safe speed. Maybe also doesn't mean that we all have to be herded into a single mode of transport.

                  Altafarmer makes most of the same points that I will continue to emphasize. Solar has its place; and it isn't as the base load that we all (including chuck) strictly depend upon in times when we will need electricity the most. Currently (and forever until some off horizon storage is implemented) solar is only be being used as a displacement for the base load.
                  Please reread mallee's statements about the effect of what "spot prices" can rise to when demand can't be met. And the resultant "free ride" that the current promoters will currently coast through (basically free) by using up their "credits". Thankfully I predict it won't be long before the electrical "smart meters" are installed on farms too. And I predict the first smart meters get installed on the solar installation sites to at least identify the actual problem. Already got them on natural gas meters; and even well into the countryside. Then we will get access (on a solar sector basis) about exactly when and where our electrical needs are coming from and be able to more clearly figure out where the costs are coming from and being paid to.

                  SOLAR ENERGY SHOULD BE SEEN AS, PAID FOR, AND PRICED AS THE EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT ENERGY THAT IT IS. AND IN MY OPINION IT WILL BE. SMART METERS ARE HERE; SOLAR CONTRACTS ARE AND WILL BE FOR 10 YEARS (MORE OR LESS) AND THEN UNILATERAL TERMS RENEGOTIATED; GRID CONNECTION AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE NOT IN COURT OF SMALL SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCERS.....AND ANYONE THINKING THAT A UTILITY IS GOING TO (OR CAN) DEPEND ON HUNDREDS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF "micro scale small producers" has their heads in the sand.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    There's an old adage about being able to "Walk and chew gum at the same time"


                    Nuff said

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by oneoff View Post
                      Well I found the full hour conversation with two decision makers (of consequence and as reported previously in this thread) to be most interesting and informative. When shared with others there doesn't seem to be even a parting remark.

                      Not meaning it still wasn't a very good idea to take the time and a bit of travel expense to learn some first hand information.

                      What I take away is that the readership is fed the wonderful solar solution to personal farm situations....but nowhere will those promoters say what their solar production was for individual months (eg. December, January and February). Then its vital to know what their actual total Kwh of usage were for those same periods. It would be informative to generally know whether major appliances (stove, water heater, clothes dryer welder, aeration fans) were in use and of an electrical nature; and even the solar array size (although with a claimed 20 kw output on a short period of a "good day" it must be at least a 20 Kw installation).

                      None of such data should be proprietory; or necessarily personally identifiable. Just picking out the best hour or even the "impressive" single month could be very misleading.

                      The rest of us did pay for some portion after all. And it is being used to convince everyone that they should jump on board. On top of that its pretty hard to not identify solar arrays from a distance; etc. etc


                      It could be correct that the train is leaving the station; but that doesn't guarantee that it is headed in the right direction and at a safe speed. Maybe also doesn't mean that we all have to be herded into a single mode of transport.

                      Altafarmer makes most of the same points that I will continue to emphasize. Solar has its place; and it isn't as the base load that we all (including chuck) strictly depend upon in times when we will need electricity the most. Currently (and forever until some off horizon storage is implemented) solar is only be being used as a displacement for the base load.
                      Please reread mallee's statements about the effect of what "spot prices" can rise to when demand can't be met. And the resultant "free ride" that the current promoters will currently coast through (basically free) by using up their "credits". Thankfully I predict it won't be long before the electrical "smart meters" are installed on farms too. And I predict the first smart meters get installed on the solar installation sites to at least identify the actual problem. Already got them on natural gas meters; and even well into the countryside. Then we will get access (on a solar sector basis) about exactly when and where our electrical needs are coming from and be able to more clearly figure out where the costs are coming from and being paid to.

                      SOLAR ENERGY SHOULD BE SEEN AS, PAID FOR, AND PRICED AS THE EXTREMELY INTERMITTENT ENERGY THAT IT IS. AND IN MY OPINION IT WILL BE. SMART METERS ARE HERE; SOLAR CONTRACTS ARE AND WILL BE FOR 10 YEARS (MORE OR LESS) AND THEN UNILATERAL TERMS RENEGOTIATED; GRID CONNECTION AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE NOT IN COURT OF SMALL SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCERS.....AND ANYONE THINKING THAT A UTILITY IS GOING TO (OR CAN) DEPEND ON HUNDREDS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF "micro scale small producers" has their heads in the sand.
                      As usual, you make some good, well informed points.

                      To comprehend the folly of this, take it to the extreme. Lets assume that everyone does as Chuck has done, and installs enough solar panels to meet their gross needs throughout the year. With the intention of selling excess back to the grid during peak generation hours, and buying it back the rest of the day. Now what is the price of the marginal kW going to be during peak generation periods? Generation will have to vastly exceed consumption during those periods, if we all expect to install solar and use the grid in place of storage. The value of that solar generated power will be negative, as the grid has to offload it somehow, at significant cost. It works for a small handful of those who get in first, as the rest of us get to pay for the grid costs and additional generation costs. But it will reach saturation and there will be no one else to pass those costs on to, then the free ride of using grid as de facto storage will be over. The only way around that is installing on site storage and disconnecting from the grid completely. Now run the economics on that, if panels themselves are questionably economic when you can rely on the grid for storage, what are the economics when storage is included? As per my neighbors who have done this, they have been brutally honest about the deplorable economics.

                      And this is why I keep questioning the sanity of policy where Mallee is, How does adding more of what caused the price spikes and blackouts solve the price spikes and blackouts. Sure, on an individual level it looks viable, but when you consider the effects on the grid( and associated costs), it has the opposite effect, and it gets worse with every additional installation.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        The "bean counters" employed by electrical utilities probably have several people who know the logical outcome of various scenarios.

                        But cost over runs and outright disasters are beyond their comprehension (as they would be for anyone else on a consistent basis). Think; smart meter fires and multi million dollar losses to our electrical utility; even steel transmission towers failing at much less than their engineered designs, or unforseen carbon capture problems at a Sask coal plants; and financial penalties for being unable to supply CO2 from same; and any other FUBAR or SNAFU that is known in cattle industry as "shit happens". That is inevitable on occasion.. maybe even to be factored into any change... and I grant even an acceptable risk if there are few other identifiable problems.

                        But to become aware that certain promoters are in complete denial brings their opinions on most other matters to be demanded to have additional scrutiny to avoid being completely sucked into their next crusade.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
                          As usual, you make some good, well informed points.

                          To comprehend the folly of this, take it to the extreme. Lets assume that everyone does as Chuck has done, and installs enough solar panels to meet their gross needs throughout the year. With the intention of selling excess back to the grid during peak generation hours, and buying it back the rest of the day. Now what is the price of the marginal kW going to be during peak generation periods? Generation will have to vastly exceed consumption during those periods, if we all expect to install solar and use the grid in place of storage. The value of that solar generated power will be negative, as the grid has to offload it somehow, at significant cost. It works for a small handful of those who get in first, as the rest of us get to pay for the grid costs and additional generation costs. But it will reach saturation and there will be no one else to pass those costs on to, then the free ride of using grid as de facto storage will be over. The only way around that is installing on site storage and disconnecting from the grid completely. Now run the economics on that, if panels themselves are questionably economic when you can rely on the grid for storage, what are the economics when storage is included? As per my neighbors who have done this, they have been brutally honest about the deplorable economics.

                          And this is why I keep questioning the sanity of policy where Mallee is, How does adding more of what caused the price spikes and blackouts solve the price spikes and blackouts. Sure, on an individual level it looks viable, but when you consider the effects on the grid( and associated costs), it has the opposite effect, and it gets worse with every additional installation.
                          Saskpower has a cap on grid tied solar pv generation so that we are unlikely to get to a situation where solar depresses the price because of over production any time soon.

                          Australia's experience with privatization and deregulation have led to many of their problems. The naysayers want to put all the blame on renewables for high prices but that is just a plain falsehood according to a report I read a few months ago. I will see if I can find it.

                          Fortunately at least in Saskatchewan we have a regulatory system that oversees the crown utilities and a rate increase review process. Our rates are decent with major reductions for industry including smaller reductions for farms. Farms are paying less than the residential rate, even though the cost of delivering electricity to a small widely dispersed population of farms is higher. A subsidy to farms in other words.

                          As Oneoff pointed out there is a rebate of approximately 20% for solar pv in Saskatchewan. But Saskpower gets to claim the carbon reduction credits so in effect is passing on some of or all of the carbon credits to solar pv owners. Just like farmers want to be paid for carbon credits for direct seeding. The total rebates paid out by Saskpower for solar pv will likely be much less than the subsidy paid to all farmers with reduced prices on a kwh. I don't have the numbers so just making an assumption based on the fact there are relativley very few solar pv systems and a lot of farmers.

                          As I have said before every loaction, region, country has a different sitaution. What works in southern Saskatchewan may not work in northern Alberta. But making generalized statements that renewables are folly or a bad idea is just plain wrong in the face of the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments and their utilities both investing in significant wind and some solar.

                          Further, we have seen quotes including storage for solar pv that are very low cost in some parts of the world. This is a rapidly changing sector with technology and costs changing rapidly.

                          So since you want some actual numbers I have one month to share. From January 28th - February 28 my 25kw system produced slightly more than twice as much electricity as we used.

                          Production : 2373kwh
                          Usage : 1174kwh

                          Keep in mind this in the dead of winter, there was lots of snowy, cloudy days and the sun is low and we put 1200 surplus kwh back into grid. Febraury is also one of the lower producing months in the calendar. 7 months out of the year production should be well over 3000 kwh each month.

                          We are not going to get rich off this, but on average our system should produce most of our annual electricy at a cost estimate over the lifetime of this system at a price much lower than the 12.65 cents per kwh we currently pay Saskpower. How much lower depends on equipment replacement costs and Saskpower price increases.
                          Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 3, 2019, 12:35.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by oneoff View Post
                            The "bean counters" employed by electrical utilities probably have several people who know the logical outcome of various scenarios.

                            But cost over runs and outright disasters are beyond their comprehension (as they would be for anyone else on a consistent basis). Think; smart meter fires and multi million dollar losses to our electrical utility; even steel transmission towers failing at much less than their engineered designs, or unforseen carbon capture problems at a Sask coal plants; and financial penalties for being unable to supply CO2 from same; and any other FUBAR or SNAFU that is known in cattle industry as "shit happens". That is inevitable on occasion.. maybe even to be factored into any change... and I grant even an acceptable risk if there are few other identifiable problems.

                            But to become aware that certain promoters are in complete denial brings their opinions on most other matters to be demanded to have additional scrutiny to avoid being completely sucked into their next crusade.

                            Humans make mistakes personally and in our organizations. The only people or organizations that don't make mistakes are those who don't do anything.

                            But I don't know how we could have progressed from the stone age and hunter gathers without doing anything and sitting around being so negative about new knowledge and technology?

                            If we were all so negative, critical and cynical, we would probably be still sitting in a damp cave!

                            Comment


                              #44
                              [QUOTE=Hamloc;403815]
                              Originally posted by grassfarmer View Post
                              Yes if this is what you are basing your info on.

                              http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html http://http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet?contentType=html

                              As you say it indicates zero output from the solar at Brooks but also zero from the coal generation at Sheerness#2, Sundance #3+#5 as well as several of the gas powered generators. If this is where your info on Brooks is coming from clearly more of an explanation of the reporting is needed.[/QUOTE.

                              If it says Current Supply and Demand report in the top left corner you are there. I looked this morning and there was 3 coal plants producing 0, 6 of 20 wind turbine sights producing 0 and roughly 11 gas powered were producing 0. I think what is important is to look at the top and calculate what method of generation produces what percentage of total output.
                              No, what is important is to further investigate the data you are presenting and get an understanding of why these generation sources are quoting zero output. I don't pretend to know the answer but I know you can't legitimately carry on with this argument using the data neither of us understands to prove that solar doesn't work on sunny days in March. I could equally argue that gas and coal don't work on sunny days in March because the same data indicates they are not producing anything either!

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Mallee.

                                You have been somewhat mislead in your question on the availability of three phase power to farms in Sask. In this area, oil development geared up around the year 2000, and along with it three phase lines on nearly every road to service the wells. The oil industry is the reason why farms have three phase power to efficiently drive aeration fans.

                                If you were always green, and didn't ever appreciate the oil industry, but it's in your area, you might be quick to say, I am on single phase service to my farm. It really wasn't because you had to be. It was a choice you made.

                                The truth might more be that the reason your farmyard is not on three phase service is due to your diverting oil development away from your farmyard road over oil traffic concerns, to roads a mile away that now backdoor service wells on your land. Doing that moved the three phase line which would have gone past your homestead lane and are now cost prohibitive to you because of the distance to access.

                                You really do deserve to be solar powered.

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...