Posted on 12/31/2021 4:10:30 AM PST by george76
You sometimes see newspaper headlines to the effect that, say, a “50 megawatt solar power plant” is being constructed. But you shouldn’t count on getting anything remotely approaching 50 megawatts of power from such an installation. Energy expert Isaac Orr explains:
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that production from solar panels plummets in the winter. The graph below shows the percentage of electricity generated by solar panels in Minnesota compared to their potential output. This percentage is called a capacity factor in electricity-industry lingo.
...
Isaac’s analysis applies specifically to Minnesota, but bear in mind that while northern states get fewer hours of sunlight than southern states in the winter, they get more hours of sunlight in the summer. And note that in the best of times, solar panels don’t produce electricity anywhere near half the time.
Minnesota solar panels are most productive in June and July, when they produce almost 30 percent of their potential output. Unsurprisingly, solar panels produce far less energy in November, December, and January, where production capacity factors are seldom above 10 percent.
That is pathetic. We spend billions of dollars on solar panels and transmission lines, and in winter, when we need energy the most, they work only around ten percent of the time.
Another reason for falling productivity in winter is snow cover. Even a thin layer of snow on panels can lead to significant reductions in electricity generation from solar panels, and as Ralph Jacobson, the founder of IPS Solar, has said in the past, it is too expensive to pay someone to clear snow off the panels.
Process that fact: solar panels are such a lame energy source that when it snows, it isn’t worth it to pay someone–high school kids, probably–to shovel them off.
...
We can see the impact of snowfall on electricity generation in the graph below. In February of 2018, solar panels produced 14.6 percent of their potential output, and in 2020, they generated 17 percent. However, in 2019, solar facilities produced just 6 percent of their potential output, because that year had one of the snowiest Februarys on record.
...
Why in the world would we rely on an energy source to power our grid that may work only six percent of the time? The answer, of course, is that we don’t. The same utilities that charge ratepayers billions to construct solar and wind facilities also charge them billions to build natural gas power plants–plants that actually work. And the overwhelming majority of the time, it is natural gas, not solar or wind, that is providing electricity. The unreliable (i.e., usually useless) “green” sources are just for show, and for fleecing ratepayers.
So far, most voters have been snowed by “green” energy propaganda. Or that is what they tell pollsters, anyway. But the day is coming when voters understand that they have been had by one of the biggest cons in world history.
aquila48-I do believe you will find your answer in all the effort being put out in covid vaccines.
There’s more. I believe that any big advance in solar/battery technology will come about in some nerd’s garage where he’s having problems paying his own electric bill. Give him a grant/subsidy and everyone else will come calling looking for theirs. The answer is in those growth/capital firms. Too many Solyndras out there.
Active solar is great for off grid use. Integrating it with grid power is foolishly ineffective and competitively expensive.
I do believe there was a subsidy given to the horse and buggy-whip industry around 1915. Cars taking away their business. If anything the government should have encouraged pulling out the rug from under the horses. Less need to clean them.
But he will convert idiots and raise money to try.
Re: “My 82-year old dad scammed”. All of my clients have at least one disability, a developmental disability. Many of them have multiple disabilities. One day, I stopped by to check on one, we’ll call him Michael. As I come into his home, Michael announces he has a great new smartphone, tablet, and super-fast internet service. Michael is on a fixed income, and cannot afford 10% of what all this must cost. As you might imagine, Michael received a call from a major telephone company marketer. With Michael’s permission, I contacted the marketer and attempted to explain the impossibility of collecting on all of what he ‘sold’ to Michael. The marketer appeared to be about 22 years old or so, and was looking forward to the larrrge commission for all this stuff. I tried and tried to calmly get through to this guy that the likelihood of payment was slim and none, and even more importantly, was wrong, as Michael does not have much money. What money he does receive each month barely covers his basic needs. The marketer just would not acquiesce, so I brought up the ADA Americans with Disabilities Act. I described the really negative publicity that would result should he insist upon trying to collect from a disabled person. The marketer’s supervisor joined the discussion, quickly realized that the marketer was in way over his head. She stated that the sale and 2-year contract would be canceled.
So, what yah smokin?
Everyplace has nighttime. No sun. It doesn’t matter how shiny it is during the day, folks need lights on at night.
Until there is an efficient, cost-effective means to store energy during night, solar is no more than peak-hour load following generator. But, not one salesman sells it that way. Which is the tell that it is all a lie.
There have been numerous attempts to generate power in NAfrica and ship it to EU. All fail on economics of transmission.
“So why put them up in places where they don’t work like the northern states, North Europe etc.? That’s where most are going up.”
I was just watching a video about putting solar in the Sahara, and they correctly identified the big problems (’lively’ people being the top one, but also water and transmission costs to Europe).
But they did note that the same solar panel in Algeria will produce 3 times as much energy per year as it would in Germany. The difference is huge, but even within Europe, I would suspect that areas of Spain can produce twice the power of most of Germany, UK, and other areas.
But if the voting public doesn’t know or understand the above, why bother doing it? And that is WORST PART of letting the Left have power.
“Active solar is great for off grid use. Integrating it with grid power is foolishly ineffective and competitively expensive.”
I do think a case can be made where grid power is expensive. For example, much of California pays over 30 cents per kWh, and so it doesn’t take too long to get one’s power back at that rate, if other conditions are met (roof slope, roof direction, lots of sun, no shade, etc.). But here in Texas, with 10 cent power, as one of my co-workers is learning the hard way, one has to be very patient to get their money back.
Even so, it still can be ok in Texas, if you don’t mind the cost, and want to hedge against future electric price increases.
US consumption in 2019 was 3.9 trillion kwhs. I’m not saying you’re wrong but if there is a source you can point me to for the 50X50 mile collectors, I’d appreciate it.
Then how do homes with solar panels have power at night?
As mentioned above, solar panels produce no electricity at night. But they tend to produce extra power during the day when the sun is out. In order to balance things out, and keep the electricity running after dark, solar customers use either solar battery banks to store energy or net metering.
Solar battery storage
The concept behind solar energy storage is simple. Most solar systems are intentionally designed to produce more power than your home needs during the daytime. The surplus power generated during the day is stored in a solar battery solution such as the Tesla Powerwall 2.
At night, when your solar panels are in sleep mode, you can use the stored energy held by the battery system to power your home.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/do-solar-panels-work-on-cloudy-days-or-at-night
“There have been numerous attempts to generate power in NAfrica and ship it to EU. All fail on economics of transmission.”
More than just transmission - also, water access, people who tend to be, how do you say, ‘lively’, dust/sand storms, and the possibility of having the investment seized by the next government.
As to transmission, I suspect that part wouldn’t be too difficult to overcome (at least in North Africa), considering the dollar numbers we’re talking about. The other areas are even easier.
But why should a place awash in oil and natural gas, the Middle East, bother with solar/wind?
“If they say yes, then they’re real conservatives, as they see putting the needs of the country as more important than ‘their rights’. If they say no, then they’re still tribal (feminists), even though they may really think they’re conservative.”
Wow. Since when is putting the welfare of the collective ahead of liberty a conservative value?
Women didn’t get the vote at the federal level until almost 50 years after they got it in the very “liberal” territories of Wyoming and Utah and then later Colorado and Idaho.
Conservatives have traditionally stood against enslavement and political disenfranchisement. It is the left that has supported it.
Don't smoke.
Never smoked in my life.
Until there is an efficient, cost-effective means to store energy during night, solar is no more than peak-hour load following generator
There is
See #92.
There have been numerous attempts to generate power in NAfrica and ship it to EU. All fail on economics of transmission
That doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's not about shipping electricity to other countries. Its about producing energy efficiently/cost effectively for your own lodgings/city/country use.
There were several documentaries on TV a few years back that showed how bad the conditions were. Must not had been in the parts where you lived.
Perhaps they were a pick and chose by the show producers, I have no idea. But other than your experience I have seen nor read anything to contradict.
Congress did a decent report a few years ago showing how much of the Green movement in the US is funded by Russia, and other countries who want to screw with the US.
It was largely ignored.
That 50 x 50 may have been for total electric consumption rather than total energy usage (it's been a few years since I looked it up).
Total energy requires 22,500 square miles or 0.5% of US land area (150 x 150 miles..which is still a postage stamp compared to US land area), which I looked up after my original post.
By comparison, the US has 125,000 linear miles of rural interstate. IMO, it would make more sense put up panels along rural interstates and run underground transmission lines in the medians.
“Conservatives have traditionally stood against enslavement and political disenfranchisement. It is the left that has supported it.”
I’d be fine with only conservative women voting, but it’s hard to see how to do that.
When you allow ALL women to vote, it pulls EVERYTHING to the Left, and the ability to compete against countries that are male-run becomes more and more difficult. Even the ability to balance a budge becomes impossible.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.