Local solar farm

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Please see the post above yours. We have tons of hydro electric capacity installed and room for plenty more. It would seem to make far more sense to further pursue this than spending the money on things that don't stand up in the climate or don't have the same sort of lifespan.

As Shannow noted, these inconsistent power sources like solar and wind still need to be propped up by a turbine, be it nuke or hydro-electric. Both of which make massively more power anyways. Now obviously some places hydro electric isn't viable, but that isn't a problem here.

Spending money on immature technologies strikes me as a waste. That's my complaint. I realize that they are improving, but they still aren't there yet.

 

[dlundblad]

At least here, wind seems to be working. There is a whole bunch of them on the flat regions of Ohio. Back when the idea was introduced (4 years ago i think?) many folks were against it mainly because it wouldn't lower their power bill. I think they failed to see the bigger picture.

I am guessing the Ohio windmills were the ones causing the ruckus? Heck, one geezer still has his NO WIND sign up and he lives 40+ miles away from them. To the locals, his 4x8 plywood sign is more of an issue.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 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


+1

 

[bluestream]

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

Coal is the answer, why people haven't figured this out yet is beyond me...

 

[Nate1979]

Because a few panels failed due to weather at a small local solar farm has no bearing on this subject. Solar panel design life is 20+ years and all these details are well known when doing the cost analysis for investment. Panels lose efficiency over time depending on manufacturer and design. All this has to be taken into account.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
As Shannow noted, these inconsistent power sources like solar and wind still need to be propped up by a turbine, be it nuke or hydro-electric. Both of which make massively more power anyways. Now obviously some places hydro electric isn't viable, but that isn't a problem here.

Spending money on immature technologies strikes me as a waste. That's my complaint. I realize that they are improving, but they still aren't there yet.


OVERKILL for a technology to emerge, there needs to be people spending money on it as it develops to aid and hasten the evolution of the technology.

Thermal is still evolving, new technologies in blade design and sealing, size, temperature, pressure, and metallurgy...places like China are retiring old, inefficient gear and replacing it with kit with double the thermal efficiency (twice the output, same consumption and emissions)....that's riding on the back of technologies developed over a century.

And the whole industry is involved in innovation and change...one power station in my state has solar feedwater heating, which adds a small amount of solar into the sweet spot of the half tonne per second, 1005F, 2600psi steam raising cycle...innovation/experimentation.

Problem I have with these "green" schemes, is when a when a winner is chosen and stupidly subsidised.

e.g. in Oz, wholesale electricity prices were 4c/KWhr (includes amortisation, maintenance, and purchase of fuel), with retail prices some 600% higher, 24c. Solar was given a feed in price of 15 TIMES the wholesale rate, and more than double the retail rate.

My state, it came in at 500MW/year, displacing a coal fired unit every year...It's OK, if it's market at work, it's business...everyone else's bill went up to cover it.

Wind was going in had over fist, winning due to the carbon tax (wealth re-distribution was the first agenda of THAT programme).

Dispatchable generation has to bid their power into the market, and be called in to produce...the wind farms either had mandated floor pricing, or were given the highest price called into the market on the day.

Interestingly, with the crash in average daily wholesale price, industry wide expenditure on R and D crashed...if you are struggling to stay afloat, Rand D, trailing new technologies, and funding emergent schemes died.

Picking a winner means that the headlines can be that South Australia generated enough wind power to power the whole state, fabulous green moment...

...while completely neglecting the fact that the state was connected to brown coal at one end, and needed gas thermal in state to provide the grid, and voltage control/power factor...and that if the interconnector tripped, the state was entirely blacked out for a couple of hours.

But the solar/wind never had/has to carry the additional burdens of grid stability and frequency control, and as the people in Queensland have recently found out, if there's no grid, they can have 5KW of solar panels on their roof, and can't cook a slice of toast.

Unscheduled energy harvesting is certainly what we as humanity need to be doing...it just needs to be integrated properly

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream

Coal is the answer, why people haven't figured this out yet is beyond me...

A read of the wiki page will answer that.

 

[Al]

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.

I am a big fan of wind power. Unfortunately low gas prices are going to cause problems with further development in the U.S. Europe will continue to add capacity though. Ultimately fossil fuels will win out.

Originally Posted By: Bluestream


Coal is the answer, why people haven't figured this out yet is beyond me...

Coal is dead on arrival as far as direct burning.. No matter what you do with it its dirty. You will see coal liquified and gasification. That is a huge energy loss right there. That along with the oil sands and shale are going to wreck the environment. The other 5 billion people in the world are going to demand more and more eneergy. Fasten your seatbelts.

As Shannow pointed out..frequently regulation is a challange in wind power. I don't think its ultimately going to be a problem though even if wind power gets up to say 30%..which it likely won't.

 

[sciphi]

Seems like the attitude is: "It's not perfect so it's not good enough". Lest we forget that we've had 100+ years of working at getting fossil fueled machinery more productive per unit of energy and less polluting.

Ultimately we can't continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we currently do. I like my water and wine drinkable, my food safe, my lungs not breathing polluted air, and my eyes to see growing greenery instead of a sea of mud. Fossil fuel extraction is rapidly heading toward methods that will destroy what makes our planet such a nice place to live. About time we tried something new, even if it isn't quite perfect yet.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Seems like the attitude is: "It's not perfect so it's not good enough". Lest we forget that we've had 100+ years of working at getting fossil fueled machinery more productive per unit of energy and less polluting.

Ultimately we can't continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we currently do. I like my water and wine drinkable, my food safe, my lungs not breathing polluted air, and my eyes to see growing greenery instead of a sea of mud. Fossil fuel extraction is rapidly heading toward methods that will destroy what makes our planet such a nice place to live. About time we tried something new, even if it isn't quite perfect yet.


That's not my point in this thread at least. I have no love for fossil fuels in this application. I saw a viable opportunity with the upgrade of Darlington, which will stay in service regardless, as it provides 20% of the province's power alone. I see hydro electric all around me, dams that have been in place for close to a century, just doing their thing. Then I see our local utility dump 45 million into a 10MW solar field that needs 25% of it replaced after 4 years. They could have upgraded one of the hydro electric dams and made that power 24/7/365. There's no shortage of moving water here.

My problem is with the agenda. That green energy has to be "in your face" or you aren't being green. Solar fields are obvious when you drive by them. Nobody can deny the presence of "a 747 on a stick" that a wind turbine provides. To me it would appear that the solar project was chosen for its image; a case of form over function. In this climate, in this hilly area, wind and solar are not the best choice. The best choice was discovered a century ago, back when this town was "the city of lights", the home of GE in Canada and a host of hydro electric dams that silently fed it. The fact that many residents have no idea as to the number of hydro dams in the area is exactly my point. They are not "in your face" enough to be touted as green, so a project that would be was conjured up and fed to the masses as a propaganda piece. And now we are paying for it with our rates.

Just my opinion on the matter with a local perspective. Geography plays a huge role on what is viable in a given area. There are places out east with steady winds that make wind farms a very logical choice for example. I'm not criticizing that decision. My gripe is with a political green agenda that seems to take precedent over logic and reason regarding what is "right" for a particular area.

 

[Nate1979]

Maybe they bought cheapo Chinese solar panels instead of buying from a quality producer.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
and as the people in Queensland have recently found out, if there's no grid, they can have 5KW of solar panels on their roof, and can't cook a slice of toast.


If that's the case, then it's only because of poor design. The system should have a battery bank and be capable of operating independent of the grid. [censored] any prepper knows that.

Coal is only the mainstay because people are afraid of Nuclear. Coal dumps many many millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every day. You forgot to add that cost in. What's the value of clean air?

So choose your poison. Or pay a little more and don't have any poison.

Replacing solar cells? You guys don't think there's waste in Coal and Nuke plants. Cracks in turbines, defects in piping etc etc.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
... My problem is with the agenda. That green energy has to be "in your face" or you aren't being green.


Sounds like the panels in question were not adequately tested for the environmental conditions and someone is responsible for that mistake, perhaps the panel supplier.

Our government sold off our power generation ages ago which is why I pay $.37 /kwh now. The power companies make obscene profits.

I very much doubt anyone would argue that hydroelectric does not have an appearance of "green," even if appearance was a component in ROI.

 

[tom slick]

The anti-hydro crowd talks about the natural river flow changng and the water filled canyons being destroyed environment.

They just finished this solar farm near me and the anti crowd doesn't like it either.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm

They closed a natural gas powered plant near here because the anti crowd think it's ugly even though the city grew up around the plant.

The anti crowd protests the local nuke plant...

You can't win.

 

[Jcp123]

Don't forget the hippies who shut the Altamont wind farm in California. What a bust.

Nuclear is a fantastic electricity source; but everything is stacked against building new plants. Perhaps existing plants can be up-graded?

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: tom slick
You can't win.

There's always a NIMBY or someone with a short-sighted agenda.
However minimising CO2 is essential for the long-term foreseeable future and IMO outweighs the risks of nuclear waste issues, never mind the minor inconvenience of flooding a valley. Even hydropower won't work too well without a snowpack to support it.

 

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: tom slick
You can't win.

There's always a NIMBY or someone with a short-sighted agenda.
However minimising CO2 is essential for the long-term foreseeable future and IMO outweighs the risks of nuclear waste issues, never mind the minor inconvenience of flooding a valley. Even hydropower won't work too well without a snowpack to support it.


I think in school we should teach the principle that it is ok to find fault with something but you do so, it would be helpful to propose and justify an alternative.

 

[Shannow]

If you are going to go hydro, you have to do it properly, and remove all of the timber from the area being dammed, or it decomposes and produces methane and CO2...we usually just flood it trees and all, which can mean decades before it stops emitting more GHG than the equivalent fossil fired generation.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you are going to go hydro, you have to do it properly, and remove all of the timber from the area being dammed, or it decomposes and produces methane and CO2...we usually just flood it trees and all, which can mean decades before it stops emitting more GHG than the equivalent fossil fired generation.


I know you are too smart to believe what you just posted.

You know there are many poisons generated by coal on TOP of CO2. Science should stand alone and not be perverted by politics. I see smart people on here supporting agendas and their forum buddies to the extent that they post things they don't really believe and know to be untrue. It's just plain dishonest.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you are going to go hydro, you have to do it properly, and remove all of the timber from the area being dammed, or it decomposes and produces methane and CO2...we usually just flood it trees and all, which can mean decades before it stops emitting more GHG than the equivalent fossil fired generation.

I'm a bit shocked too. The CO2 in a fixed number of trees affected by a hydro installation is clearly a drop in the bucket compared with the ongoing massive CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.