Solar power is shit

[Blaithin]

Blaiten I have no problem you using solar just spend your own money on it.Tell you a little story Blaithin I spent my own money on putting solar water systems twenty years ago in dugouts.Long story short I found the up keep when running miles and miles made it a very expensive trial and error.Good luck to you though on your venture.

Thanks. I’m not in a position to even think about implementing solar myself. I just like to learn. Figure it never hurts to go to workshops and listen to what people have to say, you’ll usually come away having learnt something.

I would hesitate to judge today’s solar on the solar of 20 years ago. Even if for no other reason than cost. I believe prices in the early 90’s were something like $76/watt just for the modules. In comparison today you can get the entire system - installed, frame, modules, inverter, etc. for under $3/watt in most areas around here. Then there’s the fact that the more a technology is used the more is learnt about it, the more efficient it can become and the more diverse, consistent and successful it’s uses can be.

Solar won’t fit for everyone or in every type of set up but it’s leaps and bounds from what it was. Hell, just think how much we’ve changed in 20 years!

[blackjack]

Fair enough Blaithin, technology has helped us farmers and ranchers grow an abundance amount of food for our society today.In my short almost six decades on Mother Earth I’ve went from feeding cattle off the stone boat with my dad to feeding several hundred cows in a couple of hours.Another quick example of technology is the def emissions on the tractors just traded my chore tractor off it was going to cost me thousands to fix the problem.That was after at least three times the dealership had to come out to fix while on warranty. I know we are to believe all this new technology is going to make us greener but like you say can’t afford the cost.

[jimmy]

I conveniently was just at a solar workshop...

Good modules decline by 80-85% after 20 years. They aren’t done at that point.

They’re capable of paying off their carbon footprint in 4-6 years.

Here’s a fact I found particularly interesting...

NASA is the original driver behind solar power and particularly PV modules. They use it to power satellites as, obviously, there’s no other power source out in space. The satellites they launched in the 60s right at the beginning still have functioning modules. Which puts paid to the idea they’re done after 20 years. Although it would be interesting to know how often people have landed on the satellites to perform maintenance and repairs but considering the cost and time required to do that I’m going to assume not that much. If baby solar technology from the 60s can still be going 50 years later then the more advanced modules available now can definitely manage that. No matter what solar hating article you might read saying solar has a poor lifespan, functioning 50 year old satellites say otherwise.

Also the solar pioneer in Alberta (maybe even Canada?) put his panels up in 1995 and they’re still going strong.

Not that that means solar doesn’t have its negative aspects, but what doesn’t.

Has space got the same climate as in temperature fluctuations like we do on earth? Wind snow rain ice? I would think there are many factors to figure in on life of a panel. Just asking

[chuckChuck]

My solar system is sized to cover my average annual usage. Most of the year I produce more than I can use except when our aeration fans are running in August September. So when I produce surplus electricity it goes into the grid for someone else to use. When the sun is not shining I use the grid. In effect I produce enough solar electricity to cover our annual usage.

Those who worry about the small subsidy should know that farmers are being subsidized in Saskatchewan by Sask Power. Farms don't pay the full cost of delivering electricity to farms. In fact they get a lower rate than residential customers even though the cost of building and maintaining a large rural grid system is much higher. So if you want to argue about the subsidies lets compare unsubsidized farm rates which will be really high vs the cost of solar pv.

Solar systems work well and the long term cost of solar electricity is already much cheaper than current Sask Power farm rates.

[Guest]

Fair enough Blaithin, technology has helped us farmers and ranchers grow an abundance amount of food for our society today.In my short almost six decades on Mother Earth I’ve went from feeding cattle off the stone boat with my dad to feeding several hundred cows in a couple of hours.Another quick example of technology is the def emissions on the tractors just traded my chore tractor off it was going to cost me thousands to fix the problem.That was after at least three times the dealership had to come out to fix while on warranty. I know we are to believe all this new technology is going to make us greener but like you say can’t afford the cost.

Yea and then as soon as the warranty is over dealer tells you to delete it
So you pay extra to buy this new machine with def when you purchase it
Then you suffer MANY DEF breakdowns while on warranty , and pay dealer service call mileage and time while on warranty
Then you pay $3-5 k to delete it , but yea it sounds good on paper
Was talking to a local trucker , def breakdowns broke him
So yea farmers are getting shafted over and over on this def bullshit

[furrowtickler]

My solar system is sized to cover my average annual usage. Most of the year I produce more than I can use except when our aeration fans are running in August September. So when I produce surplus electricity it goes into the grid for someone else to use. When the sun is not shining I use the grid. In effect I produce enough solar electricity to cover our annual usage.

Those who worry about the small subsidy should know that farmers are being subsidized in Saskatchewan by Sask Power. Farms don't pay the full cost of delivering electricity to farms. In fact they get a lower rate than residential customers even though the cost of building and maintaining a large rural grid system is much higher. So if you want to argue about the subsidies lets compare unsubsidized farm rates which will be really high vs the cost of solar pv.

Solar systems work well and the long term cost of solar electricity is already much cheaper than current Sask Power farm rates.

I will have to stop around there sometime to see your set up.
I am still very concern on the massive environmental consequences of strip mining for the rare materials needed for solar panels and storage batteries . There will be a huge environmental cost in the recycling of all that material.
It sure is neat to see all those steam plants around there. Interesting clash of energy in that area lol
I go by your area lots .

[Blaithin]

Has space got the same climate as in temperature fluctuations like we do on earth? Wind snow rain ice? I would think there are many factors to figure in on life of a panel. Just asking

You think there’s greater temperature fluctuations on earth than in space?

The whole reason earth supports life is because the atmosphere helps keep things more stable. On the moon, which has next to no atmosphere, the temperatures can fluctuate between +127C and -173C. And yes, there are things in space that can hit an object. Usually flying rocks at great speeds so not hail and rain granted...

Another interesting fact at the workshop I was at was that modules actually get more efficient when it’s colder. 0.4% for each degree lower than 10C or something like that. Who knew!

And they’re tested against hail so quite strong. It would take an exceptional hail storm to wipe out modules. Snow cover will lower production when it’s on the modules, yes, but that’s taken into consideration when sizing a set up and building it with tilt. Newer systems can be made to tilt and follow the sun and also have the option to dump snow off themselves and to tuck in flat if it’s really windy.

[Guest]

Seriously? You think there’s greater temperature fluctuations on earth than in space?

The whole reason earth supports life is because the atmosphere helps keep things more stable. On the moon, which has next to no atmosphere, the temperatures can fluctuate between +127C and -173C. And yes, there are things in space that can hit an object. Usually flying rocks at great speeds so not hail and rain granted...

Another interesting fact at the workshop I was at was that modules actually get more efficient when it’s colder. 0.4% for each degree lower than 10C or something like that. Who knew!

And they’re tested against hail so quite strong. It would take an exceptional hail storm to wipe out modules. Snow cover will lower production when it’s on the modules, yes, but that’s taken into consideration when sizing a set up and building it with tilt. Newer systems can be made to tilt and follow the sun and also have the option to dump snow off themselves and to tuck in flat if it’s really windy.

Those are a couple good factors
I always wondered why they cant make surface warm to melt snow and also to make them turn to follow the sun

[chuckChuck]

Moe is talking about nuclear. I would like to see the cost of nuclear vs other options including just importing more hydro from Manitoba. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is likely one of the most expensive. But when Moe starts talking nuclear for carbon reductions you know coal is on the way out for sure.

[bobofthenorth]

Moe is talking about nuclear. I would like to see the cost of nuclear vs other options including just importing more hydro from Manitoba. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is likely one of the most expensive. But when Moe starts talking nuclear for carbon reductions you know coal is on the way out for sure.

If you claim to be concerned about CO2 and you are NOT talking about nuclear then you are at best a hypocrite and likely a hypocritical idiot. If CO2 really is a problem then nuclear is the only solution.

[Klause]

Moe is talking about nuclear. I would like to see the cost of nuclear vs other options including just importing more hydro from Manitoba. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and cheaper. Nuclear is likely one of the most expensive. But when Moe starts talking nuclear for carbon reductions you know coal is on the way out for sure.

You need a 24hr a day always there always on backstop

What the hell is Scotcurlyjoe talking about with R&D.

Just build these already ffks. They are modular, ready to go, and intrinsically safe.
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/about-us/ https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/about-us/


Probably be further ahead if we bought one of those with the CCS money.

We are half a century away from nuclear fusion power - artificial suns

[blackpowder]

feeding cattle off the stone boat with my dad

I haven't heard a stoneboat referenced in speech in a very long while. Thanks
Good to know I'm not the only one. We used ours to haul shit.

Sorry, but I tuned out this other earpiss long ago.

[Blaithin]

I always find it curious that, as farmers, we seem to be more aware of monopolies than the run of the mill urban folk. We don't want monopolies in the grain co's, we don't want monopolies in the slaughter houses, we realize this impacts the price we get for our commodities.

Conversely we aren't very appreciative of monopolies in chemical companies, cell companies, etc. where we'd be at the mercy of the price when we purchase the products for our use.

Yet for some reason.... we're absolutely ok with the slim pickings of our energy sources?

What could the potential be for our costs of energy if all of a sudden there was more competition. Not every location or set up will work for solar. Or wind. Or geothermal. Or hydro. But if they were all more common options then they would not only support each other through high demands and low production moments but it could easily make them more competitive and prices more friendly for us.

Recently I heard the term Energy Ecosystem which I really liked.

Not a huge fan of the batteries needed in off grid systems but they aren't required for grid tie in. If someone has a good set up for solar or wind and feeds back into the grid during high production and pulls from the grid during low, then if there's things like coal or nuclear there as a back up, they're still there and reliable, but their gross production is lower. Which would lower emissions concerns with them. They all support each other, like a functioning ecosystem.

Variety is the spice of life, after all!

[jimmy]

You think there’s greater temperature fluctuations on earth than in space?

The whole reason earth supports life is because the atmosphere helps keep things more stable. On the moon, which has next to no atmosphere, the temperatures can fluctuate between +127C and -173C. And yes, there are things in space that can hit an object. Usually flying rocks at great speeds so not hail and rain granted...

Another interesting fact at the workshop I was at was that modules actually get more efficient when it’s colder. 0.4% for each degree lower than 10C or something like that. Who knew!

And they’re tested against hail so quite strong. It would take an exceptional hail storm to wipe out modules. Snow cover will lower production when it’s on the modules, yes, but that’s taken into consideration when sizing a set up and building it with tilt. Newer systems can be made to tilt and follow the sun and also have the option to dump snow off themselves and to tuck in flat if it’s really windy.

No idea never been up there that’s why I was asking. Their panels must be better built than the Siemens panels I bought years ago for watering cattle they are pretty much ornaments now.

[Mjolnir]

I conveniently was just at a solar workshop...

Good modules decline by 80-85% after 20 years. They aren’t done at that point.

They’re capable of paying off their carbon footprint in 4-6 years.

Here’s a fact I found particularly interesting...

NASA is the original driver behind solar power and particularly PV modules. They use it to power satellites as, obviously, there’s no other power source out in space. The satellites they launched in the 60s right at the beginning still have functioning modules. Which puts paid to the idea they’re done after 20 years. Although it would be interesting to know how often people have landed on the satellites to perform maintenance and repairs but considering the cost and time required to do that I’m going to assume not that much. If baby solar technology from the 60s can still be going 50 years later then the more advanced modules available now can definitely manage that. No matter what solar hating article you might read saying solar has a poor lifespan, functioning 50 year old satellites say otherwise.

Also the solar pioneer in Alberta (maybe even Canada?) put his panels up in 1995 and they’re still going strong.

Not that that means solar doesn’t have its negative aspects, but what doesn’t.

Which satellites specifically, I can only find one that is still up and it isn’t functional.