Open Challenge....Verifying claims with actual Grid Tie energy production.

[sumdumguy]

Dumber than a 2 by 4.

[oneoff]

I'll take your quotes off.... and repeat your statement . It's been repeated enough times.. but has had zero impact.. so we might just as well let repetition fail to convince as to restate the obvious in a slightly different way


AlbertaFarmer5;480770]Well said.
I've tried saying it every way possible, and used analogies, all to no effect. They just keep repeating cheapest generation source, ignoring the fact that it ( so far) always results in drastically higher enduser costs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just for information Saskatoon City Solar Demonstration Site ....thats minutes ago today 1:45pm 33Kw solar panel boiler plate ratings and 304 watts output at that minute. Totally piss poor insignificant production; but giving it another hour and it will be shutting down for 20 plus hours and about 10:30 capable of firing up those three 100 watt incandescent bulbs once again.

Do you really want to rely on that in the middle of a cold Sask night.

Compared to that, Brooks is a roaring success.
Only 75 acres of good farmland, and yesterday it managed to produce 0.2 MW's of electricity for almost 10 minutes out of the entire day. Using your lightbulb comparison, that would power almost fourteen 100 Watt bulbs for a day. Good thing the wind started blowing again.

[TSIPP]

But But But, in cold weather, solar is so much more efficient.

[oneoff]

But But But, in cold weather, solar is so much more efficient.

Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection...or something like that. Cool it to absolute zero and it will work really well.

So maybe complicate a solar panel system by incorporating a genetically engineered sunflower head that follows the sun. Mother nature did actually create a working system.

But humans have found that so far the computer controls and linkages have only added costs (and complications and failure points) that doesn't pay for efficiency gains achieved.

And those are some of reasons why even chucks arrays don't move in real time. There are differences between what is possible and what is practical (even though a few advantages have been are theoretically identified in specific cases)

[chuckChuck]

Renewables, A5 Quote "always results in drastically higher end user costs."?

Not on my farm. As soon as I installed a 25kw solar my Saskpower bill dropped dramatically and I locked in lower carbon tax free electricity prices for an estimated 25 years or longer.

Always? Its the everywhere men again making sweeping generalizations without evidence. Didn't you learn your lesson a few months ago? LOL

Yesterday at 12 noon on a bright clear day my 25 kw system was putting out 19 kw with the sun low in the south.

Regardless of what you think, renewables are getting installed in many countries in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. Its likely that electricity prices are rising for a number of reasons, as the cost of generation is only one portion of the costs of delivering electricity. Check your bill from Alberta where utilities break down generation vs delivery and other costs.

Yes there are additional costs to installing intermittent renewables and building a smart grid and reducing carbon emissions, but if the goal is to reduce emissions then what other cheaper alternatives are there? Hydro has been one of the cheapest renewable sources and Canada has a lot of hydro. Manitoba and Quebec both export surplus hydro electricity.

Keep in mind that the cost of wind and solar are becoming cheaper sources of generation as more and more of them are being installed at a grid scale.


How Falling Costs Make Renewables a Cost-effective Investment
https://www.irena.org/newsroom/articles/2020/Jun/How-Falling-Costs-Make-Renewables-a-Cost-effective-Investment https://www.irena.org/newsroom/articles/2020/Jun/How-Falling-Costs-Make-Renewables-a-Cost-effective-Investment

"Newly installed renewable power capacity increasingly costs less than the cheapest power generation options based on fossil fuels. The cost data presented in this comprehensive study from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) confirms how decisively the tables have turned."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I'll take your quotes off.... and repeat your statement . It's been repeated enough times.. but has had zero impact.. so we might just as well let repetition fail to convince as to restate the obvious in a slightly different way


AlbertaFarmer5;480770]Well said.
I've tried saying it every way possible, and used analogies, all to no effect. They just keep repeating cheapest generation source, ignoring the fact that it ( so far) always results in drastically higher enduser costs.

And in rebuttal, and against all real world evidence, he just repeated the renewables are cheaper mantra, complete with a propaganda piece from a renewable energy association, not once, but twice on two separate threads. Because as our previous environment minister said, if you repeat it enough times and saying loud enough, it makes it true.

Perhaps he really doesn't understand that there is a difference between generation cost, and end user cost? Meanwhile we have a thread about the massive potential vs. pitfalls of having the knowledge of the world available to everyone all the time. Some choose to use that to narrow their view point to only sources which reaffirm their own personal beliefs, some choose to broaden their horizons.

[Guest]

And in rebuttal, and against all real world evidence, he just repeated the renewables are cheaper mantra, complete with a propaganda piece from a renewable energy association, not once, but twice on two separate threads. Because as our previous environment minister said, if you repeat it enough times and saying loud enough, it makes it true.

Perhaps he really doesn't understand that there is a difference between generation cost, and end user cost? Meanwhile we have a thread about the massive potential vs. pitfalls of having the knowledge of the world available to everyone all the time. Some choose to use that to narrow their view point to only sources which reaffirm their own personal beliefs, some choose to broaden their horizons.

two different threads , same post ? recycled horseshit ?
maybe he is finally running out ?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And then there is this extraordinary claim, with no extraordinary evidence to back it up:

Yesterday at 12 noon on a bright clear day my 25 kw system was putting out 19 kw with the sun low in the south.

That is 76% of capacity in Northern Sask with the sun at it's lowest angle of the year.
Meanwhile in sunny southern Alberta( latitude is relevant in this discussion) the 5 solar farms averaged 11.9% at their peak yesterday, very briefly. Now we are supposed to believe that Chuck's consumer grade system is almost 7 times more efficient than the commercial grade systems in a more favourable climate and latitude?
Or should we believe CaseIh's friend who confirmed that there are no solar panels in Chuck's yard.
At least if you are going to lie, do a little research and make sure the lie is at least possible.

In fact I checked back a full month, 2 haven't exceeded 40% in that time, only one has exceeded 50% very briefly, twice back in November. But Chuck's imaginary panels made 76%. Amazing.

[chuckChuck]

That's what the output on the 2 inverters were saying. But surely you are not going to resort to the childish argument that i am making this all up? LOL

Winter with lots of reflected light energy off the snow is actually is a productive time of year except for the shorter days of sunshine.

The total for the year as I mentioned before was 37000 kwh.

The sun still has a lot of energy even in winter. Or perhaps you haven't noticed the temperature increasing when the sun rises?

If you are interested in installing a solar system take a look at PV Watts Calculator https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/ https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/ . You can put any location in for North America and get an estimate of annual and monthly output in kwh.

Talk to any solar company and ask them about output at midday in winter with clean panels.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It gets better, your annual capacity factor is much better than any of the grid scale solar installations in southern Alberta. Your claimed value is almost 17% In two full years, Brooks has only achieved 15%, in southern Alberta.
Do you manually rotate and change the angle of your panels to achieve such incredible numbers?
What did you do right that the professionals installing and maintaining Brooks don't do? Microclimate? Installed under street lights?

[chuckChuck]

There could be several factors why my panels have a slightly higher efficiency.

Type and efficiency rating of the inverters. Weather conditions specifically the amount of cloud. Amount of snow. I clean mine regularly in about 10 minutes with a broom. Do they clean the snow off the ones at Brooks or just leave it on?

[checking]

mispost

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ah yes, Several factors, isn't that the same excuse you use for renewables driving up electricity prices?
Has nothing to do with the fact that you just pulled a number out of thin air for your imaginary panels.
Far more likely that the commercial grade installers didn't do their homework, and used inferior inverters, to purposefully give up 13% efficiency gains for the rest of the life of the installation.
Or that they didn't figure out spending a few minutes with the broom could gain them 13% efficiency over the course of the year.
Perhaps you can get a career in advising these grid scale projects on how to increase productivity.

[oneoff]

Ah yes, Several factors, isn't that the same excuse you use for renewables driving up electricity prices?
Has nothing to do with the fact that you just pulled a number out of thin air for your imaginary panels.
Far more likely that the commercial grade install used Inferior inverters, Do purposefully give up 13% efficiency gains for the rest of the life of the installation.
Or that they didn't figure out spending a few minutes with the broom could gain them 13% efficiency over the course of the year.

I wish this were a personal discussion only with AF5; but then again AF5 may only be another alias for "my" penname if you catch the drift.
Humor me a bit. We come to conclusions based on not only facts; but gossip; and it seems, particularly a reliance on that which looks to have been verified (or repeated enough times it must be true).

It isn't often realized that there are odd cases where someone chooses to let falsehoods, exaggeration or incorrect details stand. But that's how others could unknowingly go on thinking they have completely solid facts concerning personal details that are only indirectly tied to the issue being debated.. Its how anyone who connects the dots must realize the odd dot may be leading them to incorrect characterizations. And sometimes those personal details have gotten inappropriately slipped in through frustration or retaliation from some perceived slight received in the past.


There's no obligation for Dr Jeckyl or Mr Hyde or me or AF5 (or anyone) to protect their pen name reputation. For instance only; that is probably a reason why people like charliep is so much more respected than other trolls such as "oneoff". Its no secret who charlie is; and he probably deliberately has chosen to do so. But many times an author may even feel its necessary to maintain anonymity. And those reasons are valid; some are more friendly than others; and the odd one potentially much more dangerous.

But the fact is we all can sometimes be viscous; maybe we want to try to make Uncle Billie and Aunt Sally think; maybe we have some personal agenda; but all comments should be heard, all useful in formulating a belief and the author should be given the same opportunity to make a fool of themselves or develop a following; or prove their case or have the message deservedly torn to shreds.

And that's why I think I'd be proud to have 95% of readers think I'm an AF5 clone (on solar debates at least).
All this contributed so that solar; wind flare gas and all other "carbon neutral" energy true significance can be appreciated by persons who have had lesser experience with their real world potential and impact of this renewable energy "revolution"