Local solar farm

[OVERKILL]

So our 45 million dollar 10MW solar farm is having 25% of its panels replaced because they are damaged. The farm is only a few years old:

http://www.aecon.com/What_We_Do/Power/Power_Projects?id_1699=36
http://www.hatch.ca/Power/Solar/Projects/lilylake.htm

The project was awarded in 2010.

http://www.gopeterborough.net/index.php/...lake-solar-farm

Quote:
Peterborough Utilities crews will be busy swapping out and replacing damaged solar panels over the next few months.

David Whitehouse, Director of Customer & Corporate Services with the PUC, says last year they discovered some of the panels at the Lily Lake Solar farm showed clear signs of weather damage in the wake of an unforgiving winter.

Whitehouse says damaged panels suffered delamination and about 25% of the more than 13,000 panels will have to be removed, exposed of in an environmentally friendly manner, and then replaced with newer more effective equipment.

Damage is contained to one section of the facility and work on the restoration has already begun with the removal of some panels, which will take time.

The work will have an effect on the solar farm's output, which is why work has started now in preparation for the warmer sunny days of summer.

With the damaged panels not performing up to expectations, officials are happy to say the replacements will offer substantially more output.

Whitehouse says they are tackling the job at full bore in an effort to get through the work and their timeline for completion of the task at hand will rely heavily on the weather.


Currently it looks like most of one of the fields has been ripped up. I'm curious as to the cost of this endeavour on top of the 45 million already spent.

We've also go the Darlington Nuclear refurb project going on, whose second stage (the new build proposal of adding 4,800MW of capacity) was cancelled by the government because of the "excess" power it would create (current capacity of 3,512MW, 20% of Ontario's power).

This is after they blew 1 billion dollars on a gas plant that doesn't exist

The Darlington plant cost 11.8 billion (way over budget) and has been operating at capacity since 1993. At 22 years old, this is gives a cost of $152,723 per MW per operational year.

The Lilly Lake Solar farm cost 45 million and has been operational since June of 2011. At 4 years old, this gives us a cost of $1,500,000 per MW per operational year.

Cost for the current refurb is pegged at 12.9 billion for Darlington, which should give it another 20+ years of service. The cost for the current solar farm repairs are currently unknown.

 

[xxch4osxx]

I'm not surprised at all that waste. There is a solar farm being built just up the road from me.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
I'm not surprised at all that waste. There is a solar farm being built just up the road from me.


Green power just isn't there yet. If they had gone with the new build at Darlington, between it and Bruce, they could power the entire province and we could be selling the excess power to the States. But since that makes sense and actually has the potential to generate real revenue, obviously the idea was scrapped

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
I'm not surprised at all that waste. There is a solar farm being built just up the road from me.


Green power just isn't there yet. If they had gone with the new build at Darlington, between it and Bruce, they could power the entire province and we could be selling the excess power to the States. But since that makes sense and actually has the potential to generate real revenue, obviously the idea was scrapped

Lol ya, pretty much! Gotta love government run entities!

 

[HTSS_TR]

It's too cold and not many sunny days a year up north compares with area such as California deserts, Arizona, Nevada ... The problem with these deserts are possible high wind.

I'm surprise that Canadian decided to build solar farm(s) up there, wind farms are better.

 

[Donald]

We really need to get nuclear fusion working so it puts out more than it needs as input. Everything else is just short term. Think of fusion as having the same kind of energy the sun puts out, just less of it and without the 93 million mile distance and inefficiency.

Watch a recent NOVA on volcanoes and consider that it might be nice to have a power source that did not depend upon the sun.

 

[simple_gifts]

Nuclear fusion works; controlling it... well....

 

[Shannow]

As has been explained to me by many greenies when refuting their outlandish claims, my position is lessened as I'm paid by coal.

That being said, we need more of these stories to actually get out, so that the discussion is rational and facts based.

e.g. cost of installation...It's vaunted around that wind is the same price as coal (for installed capacity), and the solar farm here is more than twice that of either.

But when presenting advertising blurbs, nice photo ops for the newspapers, the go nameplate to nameplate and declare equivalence....which it's not.

If you had a 10MW coal fired (oil fired, gas fired, nuke, etc.), it is what is termed "dispatchable"...you can tell the operator what the MW output is required, and they can make that happen 24/7....a 10MW power station can produce 240MWhr today, tomorrow, and the day after.

A 10MW solar, assuming that it's at peak output for 12 hours of the day can only produce 120MWHr, and in reality less than half of that (say 70MWHr to be generous, on a not cloudy day or covered in snow) ... so to compare nameplate capacity, you really need a $150M 35MW solar plant, and somewhere to store the energy...Just the capital cost for MWHr equivalent generation is enough to buy the coal plant, and buy coal ($55/tonne) for 16,000 days (45 years)...you don't buy the coal all on day 1, so your spend is spread over the 45 years.

And that's not factoring in the storage medium, which hasn't been invented yet, so not part of the costings.

Wind ?

Development plans speak of wind being the same price as coal for installed capacity...then go on to promise 35% capacity factor (i.e. on AVERAGE put out 35%....therefore you need 28MW of wind farm to match the available output of the thermal)...BUT...in Europe, long term trends of installed wind are revealing only 20% capacity factor, nearly half of the promise...on average, you need 50MW of installed wind (cost difference is enough to buy coal for 30 years, not counting the cost of installing storage)

And solar/wind are only harvesters, you only have it when it's there, and with current technology, you have to use it when you have it, not save it up for later.

Which gets to the last point(s) of dispatchable power.
* system frequency...the harvesters can only harvest when there is a stable grid to pump the energy into...they don't make/control frequency. No thermals (or BIG hydros), no wind/solar.
* System stability. Being harvesters, there's nothing up their sleeve if a line goes down, or the wind stops blowing. Dispatchable units can be called upon to increase load (or overload if necessary) to keep the grid up.
* Power factor correction. The thermals with the manner in which the rotating generator is excited are used continuously to modify the grid power factor.

The above are yet more of the under-reported facts that go with green eyed projects...and they are important to a society who expects their lights, heaters, and cookers to come on when they flick the switch.

For example, and there's a few in Canada as an example, as thermal (and nuclear) power stations are being closed and demolished, with the greens leading the cry of renewables are the future, grids are having to keep the generator sections of the turbo-generator sets, and manufacture "synchronous condensers" out of them, to provide some inertia to the system, and the ability to control system volts/power factor on the grid.

German example

Seach the document for the fate of Nanticoke Power Station (*)

It's clearly not cheap, and it's clearly not a cost that's being borne by the solar and wind farms.

(*) sniff, that's the last of the Eriths.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Donald
We really need to get nuclear fusion working so it puts out more than it needs as input.

Nuclear fusion may never be viable. It is just too complicated. Its complxity will need to be on the scale of at least Cern. As a practical matter we are no closer now than 20 years ago. Well, we might be but we are still only at the first 100 yards of a one mile race and it won't get less complicated.

 

[Rolla07]

I doubt wind farms are any better

 

[sleddriver]

I'm no longer amazed at the denseness and arrogance of the meanie greenies when it comes to their politicalization of energy. They've run over themselves in an effort to be amoung the first, the biggest, the highest %'ge of "green" energy, as bragging rights.....except that dog won't hunt for long.

Green boondoggle = massive, expensive regular boondoggle. And higher rates to pay, maintain and replace their short-sighted grand vision compared to long-proven designs. They have yet to learn there is no free lunch...green or otherwise.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against solar. Very usefull on boats and for power in the middle of nowhere. Has been for decades now to those of us interested in energy. But attempting to power a large city from it or a major %'ge of their energy budget from it, is just plan nuts. It's not dense enough and it's subject to weather. Down here, it has to be de-rated due to high Summer temps (140° asphalt!).

I DO have solar hot-water, which works great in my all-electric neighborhood. It's much less expensive, lasts far longer and directly heats water. Incredibly simple. I've had it for 30+ years now. Same system.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: Rolla07
I doubt wind farms are any better


Almost 30% of Iowa's electricity is generated by wind power. Where I live we get almost 70% of our electricity from wind power. We also have some of the lowest price per kilowatt hour in the country.

I'd say it works pretty well.

 

[SLATRON]

Solar panels actually are more efficient in winter because colder temps equal less resistance and light is not defracted by as much moisture in the air. But less hours of usable light, although in the summer months higher latitudes have more usable light in summer.
Renewable energy can't currently compete without govt subsidies but the same was true for fossil fuels were new, and they still get billions in support if you look into it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Rolla07
I doubt wind farms are any better


That's my point. We could have added the extra capacity to Darlington and been ahead of the game. Instead, we are left chasing the "green" pipe dreams which don't provide reliable power and don't last.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
I doubt wind farms are any better


Almost 30% of Iowa's electricity is generated by wind power. Where I live we get almost 70% of our electricity from wind power. We also have some of the lowest price per kilowatt hour in the country.

I'd say it works pretty well.


If there were no coal or nukes providing frequency and governing, you would have zero wind power at all.

Wind only works if held together by thermal or large hydro

 

[kschachn]

It's not the same. Fossil fuels have guaranteed energy output, they always have. Wind and solar will never have that.

Originally Posted By: SLATRON
Renewable energy can't currently compete without govt subsidies but the same was true for fossil fuels were new, and they still get billions in support if you look into it.

 

[dlundblad]

I breezed through the articles/ posts, but did they mention what was damaging the panels? (My guess is harsh winters?)

I like the idea of green power, but you have to step back and do the cost benefit analysis. Companies should be doing this, but sometimes we wonder.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
I doubt wind farms are any better


Almost 30% of Iowa's electricity is generated by wind power. Where I live we get almost 70% of our electricity from wind power. We also have some of the lowest price per kilowatt hour in the country.

I'd say it works pretty well.


There's an interesting Wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

Quote:
Iowa is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation with 27.4% of the state's electricity generation coming from wind in 2013.[1][2] At the end of 2013, wind power in Iowa had 5,137 megawatts (MW) of capacity, third only to Texas and California.[3] 15,752 Million kWh of electrical energy was generated by wind powered generators in 2013.[4] In 2014 Iowa was second only to Texas in wind power generation. [5]


Quote:
The average capacity factor of Iowa wind farms has been estimated as 33.3% by a wind industry consultant.[19] Production numbers for 2013, when wind capacity remained almost constant, were actually slightly better, showing a capacity factor over 34 percent.[20] Due to these better wind conditions, Iowa generated more electricity from wind power in 2013 than California, even though it had less wind power capacity installed.[21] And again in 2014 Iowa was number two in wind power generation behind only Texas.


Quote:
MidAmerican Energy is constructing five projects in Iowa totaling over 1,000 MW of capacity. The projects, expected to be completed by the end of 2015, are in O'Brien, Marshall, Webster, Grundy, and Madison counties. 448 wind turbines manufactured by Siemens are to be constructed. At a cost of some 1.9 billion dollars, this will be Iowa's largest economic development project to date. The largest project, the Highland project in O'Brien county, will have 500 MW of capacity, making it Iowa's largest.


Which is huge. And I imagine the land mass occupied by these structures is equally huge. In comparison, the 4 additional reactors added to Darlington would add almost 5x that output (4,800MW) on the current site (taking up no additional land) and can run at basically max capacity 24/7/365.

And then there is the lifecycle factor, which was what I was at issue with in my OP. If these things lasted 20+ years that's one thing, but they don't. If the lifespan of the solar panels in our local farm prove to be typical then it becomes an even greater waste of money relative to investing that money in more traditional endeavours like Nuclear or hydro electric.

Another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls

Quote:
Since 1970, the waters of the Churchill River have been diverted into the nearby Churchill Falls hydroelectric power station. Today water flows down the falls less than once a decade, during spring thaw or periods of exceptional rains. The Churchill Falls power station has the third largest hydroelectric-generating capacity in North America (5,428 MW or 7,279,000 hp installed, expandable to about 6,300 MW or 8,400,000 hp) and is also the second largest underground power station in the world, after the Robert-Bourassa generating station in northern Quebec.


5,428MW of power. One dam. We have several of these. It just seems hydro electric isn't as "in vogue" or "in your face" green as solar or wind so it is largely ignored despite the massive contribution it already makes

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I breezed through the articles/ posts, but did they mention what was damaging the panels? (My guess is harsh winters?)

I like the idea of green power, but you have to step back and do the cost benefit analysis. Companies should be doing this, but sometimes we wonder.



Canadian weather. Apparently these things are developed in a vacuum

Testing for long term durability apparently wasn't part of the 45 million invested

 

[Bladecutter]

Solar, wind, and hydro should be used in conjunction with nuclear, nat gas, oil, and coal.
Why?

Because one day, we will have raped the earth, and there won't be any coal, nat gas, oil, and nuclear fuel left, and if we wait until that point to build wind, solar, and hydro, we will have to pay many factors more to build those types of power plants.

Can you deny this simple truth?

And, if you haven't noticed, solar panels and wind generators have greatly improved in output and quality over the past 10 years.

Yes, solar panels can be damaged under certain weather patterns, like hail, but, if the company that owns and operates the solar farm does not have hazard insurance to cover this type of equipment risk, they are the idiots. And since we are most likely talking about a government agency that typically self-insures it's equipment, we have guaranteed stupidity in play, in this regards to risk loss.

BC.