how many acres of PV does it take to get 1000 MW of output?

5/17/2014 10:03:42 AM

Dude I said I didn't do them.

But I'm done here. If you knew what you were doing you'd have the respect you deserve I don't really need it here.

I reached out to the local reps today and yep... $1.80-$1.50 a watt depending on how much you need
And that doesn't include infrastructure and install soo keep on with your pipe dream bs

5/17/2014 2:19:30 PM

you called local reps on a Saturday to win a message board argument?

5/17/2014 2:25:33 PM

This thread has a lot of [FAIL] in it.

[Edited on May 17, 2014 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ooops]

5/17/2014 9:26:06 PM

Yeah I'm embarrassed too I was pissed bored and frustrated

5/17/2014 9:27:04 PM

I would be too, if I were wrong.


oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh no he din-int




[Edited on May 17, 2014 at 9:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2014 9:33:58 PM

I'm not wrong it's crap technology and would have been trashed years ago if not subsidized.
That's my point we are investing resources in something that's not recyclable it's more poisonous than lead acid batteries and it doesn't pay for itself without incentives...

God your ignorance is annoying. Wind power.. Actually harvests wind energy, hydro electric actually harvests gravitational energy (ultimately solar since the water gets up there by evaporation)... PV is just a fucking radiant heat catalyzed battery.

And like he said he doesn't have to prove shit but quote people trying to make a buck off a scam of an industry.
The math, the science is there anyone smart enough to see it knows it's junk.

[Edited on May 17, 2014 at 9:58 PM. Reason : Dur due dur magic sun power....]

5/17/2014 9:55:09 PM

Quote :

"God your ignorance is annoying. Wind power.. Actually harvests wind energy, hydro electric actually harvests gravitational energy (ultimately solar since the water gets up there by evaporation)... PV is just a fucking radiant heat catalyzed battery."

LOL wut? How did I miss this gem from the last page about PV

Quote :

"Also you should know they don't make power from the sun they are a fucking battery that requires radiant energy to operate. (Dissimilar metals trade electrons through an electrolyte sound familiar?)"

What is this I don't even.. Do you mean to say PV eventually runs out of electrons all together and stops operating? This little silicon wafer stores energy equivalent of decades worth of electrical power within it and all that the sunlight does is bring that power out? So you mean to say NO net energy is added from the photons that hit the surface? That shit's just dumb. All electrical current is basically a trade of electrons. I am not sure what's your point here.

Quote :

"And like he said he doesn't have to prove shit but quote people trying to make a buck off a scam of an industry. The math, the science is there anyone smart enough to see it knows it's junk."

What is junk about PV in you opinion? Low efficiency? Or your misconception of somehow that sunlight is NOT being converted into the electric current by the PV panels? Because if it's the first one, it very much depends on your definition of "low". Solar panels get something like 15 percent efficiency. Thats much better than photosynthesis and is similar to the efficiency of an internal combustion engine.

Quote :

"Dur due dur magic sun power...."

I really can't take you seriously after this.. I wish I knew NC state basically gave out engineering degrees to anyone that filled out an application, because I would have gotten one. I thought you had to take science courses past HS physics, and had to be able to do basic research.. apparently neither one was really a requirement

5/17/2014 10:56:30 PM

The dur dur magic sun power that frees the electrons is energy

5/17/2014 11:14:11 PM

It does free electrons... It doesn't provide them.

It uses ionized silicon that once it reaches it's stable state results in...... A dead battery...

5/18/2014 8:56:18 AM

how many acres of PV does it take to get 1000 MW of output?

5/18/2014 9:05:36 AM

2300 acres

5/18/2014 9:51:06 AM

Quote :

"It does free electrons... It doesn't provide them. "

oh, i think i understand your confusion, you are under the impression that wind/water generators receive electrons from wind/water. that's a little embarrassing for an engineer.

in water/wind generation the electrons are coming from the conductor, you aren't receiving electrons. a PV is a battery only in the same way that a generator for water/wind is. the conductors (coil) in generators don't last forever, they have to be rewound or replaced. this is high school level physics, PV harnesses solar energy in conceptually the same way that generators harness wind/water energy.

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ^similar size as facility and impoundment for equivalent nuclear]

5/18/2014 11:30:19 AM

They move them through a motor... There is no break in the circuit....

They "induce" current in a conductor.

5/18/2014 12:40:32 PM

The electrons are already in the conductor, your argument about PV being a battery is silly because then generators are batteries in the same way. The magnetic field (from the energy that rotates it) makes them move in the same way that energy from the sun makes them move in PV. If PV is a battery then so are generators.

Stop embarrassing yourself with that argument

5/18/2014 12:57:26 PM

Quote :

"how many acres of PV does it take to get 1000 MW of output?"

It depends on location, type of PV panels, and whether the panels are fixed-array or sun-tracking of course. But as a current example, Topaz Solar Farm near San Louis Obispo in CA is a brand-new 550MW nameplate facility that contains 9 million fixed arrays and has a total footprint of 3500 acres, although the total area of the actual panels is around 1600 acres. Cost to build was 2 billion dollars. Multiply that by 2 and you get your rough estimate for a 1000MW plant in a sunny location.

For an example of a less sunny location, Waldpolenz Solar Park in Germany (which came online 5 years before Topaz) is getting 50MW from 250 acres of fixed arrays, so to get to 1000MW with the same panels they would need 5,000 acre footprint. Cost to build was 130 million euros.

To put all of this in perspective, total area of city of Raleigh is 92,160 acres. Shearon Harris has a nameplate capacity of 900MW and cost 3.9 billion to build. I's also like to compare operational cost, as fixed PV arrays require no cooling water, have no moving parts, and have no fuel costs.

But PV technology is constantly developing. There are multi-junction PV cells developed that used multiple layers, each capturing to a specific range of wavelengths of light, which allows to increase maximum theoretical efficiency from 34% of the conventional silicone cells to 87% (real world efficiency being about a third of that in both cases).



Of course if it was up to sumfoo1 we would just sit on our ass until we ran out of gas because he KNOWS that PV is a scam and will never be viable because it's just a battery, man

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2014 1:00:16 PM

So what you are saying is solar panels last forever and they don't go chemically inert after a certain power output (even proven the cells last longer when in the shade)

A generator induces ac current a windmill induces ac current a solar panel transfers electrons from one type of ionized silicon to another type until they both reach a stable state and your chemical process catalyzed by the sub is done and will produce no more power.

Now I'm listening .


I will concede that in the 3 years since I really looked at solar... The panels are better and cheaper most still have 10 year paybacks but also have 15-20 year warranty a rather then the 10/10 they used to be.

Ten years without subsidies.

[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2014 1:29:27 PM

No, what you were implying is that generators last forever because you didn't know that like PV they use electrons they already contain. They don't last forever either.

5/18/2014 1:43:09 PM

Wow I'm done here. You are telling me that I'm telling you something that I think is dumb.

Generators move electrons in a complete circuit

Panels move electrons from an anode to a cathode that will eventually lose their ability to do so as the electrons do not move back to the anode from the cathode.

A generator induces electron movement in a coil with magnets. Copper coils done wear out unless over heated or abused. Permanent magnets do but electric magnets rarely do.

Anyway I'm out not reading anymore.

Solar panels are now somewhat viable especially with incentives

5/18/2014 2:00:56 PM

I understand how this stuff works, you didn't

5/18/2014 2:04:09 PM

We should probably stop using and researching any sort of actual batteries too. They degrade as they are cycled and have a limited useful lifespan.

But seriously, bttt?

I think teslas are super neat and I want to trade my TDI in for a Model S at some point.

5/18/2014 2:19:33 PM

So I'm told Tesla is moving production to China?

5/19/2014 9:00:00 AM

i thought that was for Chinese market cars

5/19/2014 9:33:39 AM

I don't know. Someone who doesn't know so much about cars mentioned it to me. First I heard. Figured I'd ask here.

5/19/2014 8:01:26 PM

Quote :

"So what you are saying is solar panels last forever and they don't go chemically inert after a certain power output (even proven the cells last longer when in the shade) "

And what everyone else is telling you is that it doesn't fucking matter. With 25 year warranties, and a general replacement guarantee of 80% of peak efficiency after 25 years, the point at which the panels go chemically inert is

1) SO fucking far into the future it makes your arguments completely pedantic
2) SO far beyond the payback and warranty periods, it makes your arguments completely pedantic

I agree that the subsidized pricing is bullshit. But the technology is catching up and is economically viable even without the tax subsidies.

5/20/2014 12:23:53 AM

Quote :

"I agree that the subsidized pricing is bullshit. But the technology is catching up and is economically viable even without the tax subsidies."

It is catching up and becoming economically viable because of the subsidies. Therefore, subsidized pricing is NOT bullshit. That's the whole point of this type of subsidies. If anything should be subsidized, it's education and new technology. Not oil conglomerates. Not corn farmers. Not even mortgages. I don't know how people can be upset about government spending money on things that are actually useful for our future when we have so many other bullshit budget items. Actually, I do get it. It's because most people only care about the present or immediate future, and vote with their wallet accordingly. Very few people think long term.

5/21/2014 11:19:27 PM

Now I could be wrong but where I was going with my point about the whole electrons aren't coming from the sun thing and aren't being induced into current and that you are degrading a cathode an anode with the battery shit is... No matter how good the technology is it's still dependent on an new resource that runs out when the panel dies right ?

5/22/2014 5:46:05 AM

Nothing lasts forever man. This isn't an ideal world. It's a REAL world.

Conservation of energy. Nothing is 100% efficient. There will always be losses and in the end, that means converting energy from one source to another will always come at a cost.

[Edited on May 22, 2014 at 6:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2014 6:13:18 AM

Broken parts from wind and water turbines can be recycled.

The power actually comes from a constant source.

5/22/2014 7:52:12 AM

Quote :

"No matter how good the technology is it's still dependent on an new resource that runs out when the panel dies right ?"

but when you consider how long that takes, and recent efficiency advances and research in PV's made with earth-abundant materials, its a pedantic point that makes you look silly

5/22/2014 8:20:11 AM

Nuclear energy will run out when we are approaching the second ice age from now but it's got bad ju ju.

5/22/2014 10:40:14 AM

wat

5/22/2014 10:53:47 AM

Lol I'm just trolling now.

5/22/2014 11:01:36 AM

Quote :

"It is catching up and becoming economically viable because of the subsidies."

Wind farms are only economically viable because they don't account for enough generation capacity to affect the grid with their intermittent nature. Wind farms like to generate power when nobody needs it (nighttime) and then drop off randomly. Once wind farms start accounting for more than a tiny sliver of our generation capacity, utilities will be forced to signal wind farms to shut down during low-load times or enforce negative pricing for the unwanted power to offset the shutdown and startup costs of displaced plants. Texas (ERCOT) has already run into this problem where wind farms are forcing them to shutdown less expensive load following steam plants while having to place gas turbine plants on standby in case the wind farms drop off.

5/22/2014 4:41:20 PM

Denmark deals with having 20% of their production from wind

5/22/2014 4:57:33 PM

5/22/2014 8:43:50 PM

Quote :

"Wind farms are only economically viable because they don't account for enough generation capacity to affect the grid with their intermittent nature. Wind farms like to generate power when nobody needs it (nighttime) and then drop off randomly. Once wind farms start accounting for more than a tiny sliver of our generation capacity, utilities will be forced to signal wind farms to shut down during low-load times or enforce negative pricing for the unwanted power to offset the shutdown and startup costs of displaced plants. Texas (ERCOT) has already run into this problem where wind farms are forcing them to shutdown less expensive load following steam plants while having to place gas turbine plants on standby in case the wind farms drop off."

Here we go again with "they took our cheap energy." Is any first generation-technology going to be cheaper than established technology? Probably not. Does it mean that the established technology is a better solution in the long term? No. Will renewable energy require grid modification with provisions for short-term energy storage? Yes. But I can tell you a problem that the steam plants run into every day, one that the solar and wind don't have - paying for fuel.

Also, it just happens that the solar farms generate power during the day. So between wind and solar we have two intermittent sources working two shifts.

5/23/2014 9:46:33 AM

5/23/2014 10:07:23 AM

Quote :

"But I can tell you a problem that the steam plants run into every day, one that the solar and wind don't have - paying for fuel. "

you can stockpile coal and natural gas; you can't stockpile wind and sunlight for when you need it. until wind and solar start solving their own problem of paying for energy storage systems, they will continue to be thought of as a joke and a nuisance.

this is the real reason why utilities bought in to solar concentrating plants so readily while only installing solar panel farms to meet mandates - they have some built in ride-through time that makes their generation much less intermittent, and they can signal operators to let them know they're about to drop output far enough in advance for other generators to come online.

5/23/2014 10:24:08 AM

Quote :

"you can stockpile coal and natural gas; you can't stockpile wind and sunlight for when you need it. until wind and solar start solving their own problem of paying for energy storage systems, they will continue to be thought of as a joke and a nuisance "

Sunlight and wind are pretty constant in the long term, more so than the availability of coal and natural gas, so stockpiles have to be only large enough to smooth the minute, daily, or at the most weekly fluctuations. That amount of energy could technically be stockpiled even though mechanical means, but I think the end goal is to have a system diversified enough where drops in individual localized outputs are not important. Availability of large battery packs such as the one in Teslas widely distributed throughout the grid, in combination with greater energy efficiency in construction techniques, appliance design, and light emitting devices should ultimately yield in a system that can better handle local variations in power generation levels.

5/23/2014 3:46:29 PM

there is nothing constant about them in the long term; they fluctuate by seasons as much as they do by time of day. Battery systems are magnitudes of order off from handling the needs of solar; pumped hydro and compressed air will be the only systems remotely capable of handling the storage needs necessary for renewables to ever account for more than 10% of our connected energy, unless we drop coal almost completely and make drastic changes to the entire natural gas industry in terms of storage, hourly trading, and market rates.

I see major changes to the natural gas industry in support of renewables as a foregone conclusion. Batteries aren't a viable option, compressed air is in it's infancy, and environmental groups will destroy any plans for future pumped storage facilities.

5/24/2014 10:40:27 PM

Oh we back

7/16/2014 11:47:36 PM

Tesla III on the way in 2017, $35k & 200 mile range.

Now is that $35k in 2014 money, or 2017 money?

7/17/2014 9:27:01 AM

i'm more concerned about 2dr vs 4dr but it's a good sign that the alternatives are going to have to step up their game - the focus electric and leaf will have a hard time competing when their range is less than 1/2.

by 2017 the supercharger network will be built out enough that overcrowding hopefully isn't an issue as well - lines to charge when you need 30min per car won't be too exciting for holiday weekend travel

7/17/2014 9:52:27 AM

Hopefully more of them will have the battery swapper too. That will keep turnover time relatively the same if not faster than getting a tank of gas.

7/17/2014 2:15:08 PM

The problem with the battery swapper for tesla is they need to put the same size battery in a bunch of cars to make it legit but that's one of the most expensive parts of the car so having a $20,000 battery be your standard size you'll never make a car less than 40k.

And obviously the 3 doesn't have that size battery so now they have to have 2 swap stations.


What they really need to do is make $7500 battery packs (~12-15 kWh) and put 1,2,3 or 4 per car.

That way they could make from a city car to a model s all with the same pack.

7/17/2014 2:21:17 PM

Quote :

"What they really need to do is make $7500 battery packs (~12-15 kWh) and put 1,2,3 or 4 per car. That way they could make from a city car to a model s all with the same pack."

7/17/2014 2:27:16 PM

Umm nothing on the technical side prevents them from using the same battery frame and just installing less cells, which is the expensive part. I'm pretty sure it's a product placement decision. They don't even offer the 60kwh model anymore, for the same reason you don't see 4 cylinder NA luxury cars. Model S s a premium product and they don't want to devalue the brand by making it less capable. It's much smarter for them to introduce a lower tier model to take care of the other market segments.

7/17/2014 3:17:05 PM

They still have 60 and 85 I thought I thought there was originally a 40.

And I doubt you'd be able to fit and energy density is their barrier there is no friggin way you could fit 85kwh in a cell small enough to fit a city car like design

Now that they released their patents they should keep with their idea but move towards infrastructure making the first universal battery system for battery swapping.

[Edited on July 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2014 4:33:47 PM

Nobody posted this yet?

1/29/2015 3:58:13 PM